MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Auditory Steady-State Responses and Word Recognition Scores in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Adults

2004· article· en· W2060308684 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyStimulus (psychology)QUIETPsychologyHearing impairedHearing lossSpeech perceptionMedicinePerceptionPhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective The number of steady-state responses evoked by the independent amplitude and frequency modulation (IAFM) of tones has been related to the ability to discriminate speech sounds as measured by word recognition scores (WRS). In the present study IAFM stimulus parameters were adjusted to resemble the acoustic properties of everyday speech to see how well responses to these speech-modeled stimuli were related to WRS. Design We separately measured WRS and IAFM responses at a stimulus intensity of 70 dB SPL in three groups of subjects: young normal-hearing, elderly normal-hearing, and elderly hearing-impaired. We used two series of IAFM stimuli, one with modulation frequencies near 40 Hz and the other with modulation frequencies near 80 Hz. The IAFM stimuli, consisting of four carrier frequencies each independently modulated in frequency and amplitude, could evoke up to eight separate responses in one ear. We recorded IAFM responses and WRS measurements in quiet and in the presence of speech-masking noise at 67 dB SPL or 70 dB SPL. We then evaluated the hearing-impaired subjects with and without their hearing aids to see whether an improvement in WRS would be reflected in an increased number of responses to the IAFM stimulus. Results The correlations between WRS and the number of IAFM responses recognized as significantly different from the background were between 0.70 and 0.81 for the 40 Hz stimuli, between 0.73 and 0.82 for the 80 Hz stimuli, and between 0.76 and 0.85 for the combined assessment of 40 and 80 Hz responses. Response amplitudes at 80 Hz were smaller in the hearing-impaired than in the normal-hearing subjects. Response amplitudes for the 40 Hz stimuli varied with the state of arousal and this effect made it impossible to compare amplitudes across the different groups. Hearing aids increased both the WRS and the number of significant IAFM responses at 40 Hz and 80 Hz. Masking decreased the WRS and the number of significant responses. Conclusions IAFM responses are significantly correlated with WRS and may provide an objective tool for examining the brain’s ability to process the auditory information needed to perceive speech. This study examined the relationship between auditory steady-state evoked responses (ASSRs) and word recognition scores (WRS). Independent amplitude and frequency modulated (IAFM) tonal stimuli were used to evoke ASSRs. The IAFM stimuli were designed to share acoustic properties with human speech (e.g., depth of modulation of AM and FM, intensity, and modulation rate). The motivation of the study was to use these speech-modeled stimuli to objectively predict WRS in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects with and without their hearing aids. We recorded two ranges of multiple IAFM, near 40 Hz and near 80 Hz. Significant correlations were observed when comparing the number of significant ASSRs and WRS. Hearing aids increased both the WRS and the number of significant IAFM responses. IAFM may provide an objective tool for examining the brain’s ability to process the auditory information needed to perceive speech.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it