MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086229626 · doi:10.1121/1.2191616

Simultaneous latency estimations for distortion product otoacoustic emissions and envelope following responses

2006· article· en· W2086229626 on OpenAlexafffund
David W. Purcell, Patricia Van Roon, M. Sasha John, Terence W. Picton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthFondation Pour l'Audition
KeywordsAudiologyOtoacoustic emissionLatency (audio)AcousticsCochleaMathematicsMedicinePhysicsHearing lossTelecommunicationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to simultaneously estimate processing delays in the cochlea and brainstem using the same acoustic stimuli. Apparent latencies were estimated from ear canal measurements of 2f1-f2 distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and scalp recordings of the f2-f1 envelope following response (EFR). The stimuli were equal level tone pairs (65 dB SPL) with the upper tone f2 set at either 900 or 1800 Hz to fix the initiation site of the DPOAE and EFR. The frequency of f1 was swept continuously between frequency limits chosen to keep the EFR response between 150 and 170 Hz. The average DPOAE latencies were 9.6 and 6.2 ms for f2 =900 and 1800 Hz, and the corresponding EFR latencies were 12.4 and 8.8 ms. In a control condition, a third (suppressor) tone was added near the DPOAE response frequency to evaluate whether the potential source at fdp was contributing significantly to the measured emission. DPOAE latency is the sum of both inward and outward cochlear delays. The EFR apparent latency is the sum of inward cochlear delay and neural processing delay. Neural delay was estimated as approximately 5.3 ms for both frequencies of stimulation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→