MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Stimuli for Evoking Auditory Steady-State Responses

2003· article· en· W2088443924 on OpenAlexaff
M. Sasha John, Andrew Dimitrijevic, Terence W. Picton

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteady state (chemistry)Noise (video)AudiologyAmplitudeAuditory stimuliAcousticsPsychologyMathematicsPhysicsMedicineNeuroscienceComputer sciencePerceptionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective To compare the magnitudes of the steady-state responses evoked by several types of stimuli, and the times required to recognize these responses as significant. Design In the first two experiments, we examined auditory steady-state responses to pure tones, broadband noise and band-limited noise. The stimuli were amplitude modulated in the 75 to 100 Hz range with sinusoidal or exponential envelopes. A third experiment investigated the effects of exponential envelopes on the responses to broadband noise. The final experiment examined auditory steady-state responses evoked by rapidly presented transient stimuli, such as clicks, brief tones and brief noise-bursts. All stimuli were presented dichotically at intensities 30 to 50 dB above behavioral thresholds. The subjects were adults, who drowsed or slept during the recording sessions. Results The responses to the noise were larger than the responses to the tones. At an intensity of 32 dB nHL, the average amount of time needed to obtain significant responses for the amplitude-modulated noise was 43 sec and the maximum time was 2 minutes. The average time for pure tone stimuli was approximately 2 minutes but 25% of the responses remained undetected after 5 minutes. Combining the responses to all the frequency-specific stimuli showed results similar to using noise stimuli. Using exponential envelopes did not increase response amplitudes for noise stimuli. At 45 dB nHL, the steady-state responses to clicks and other transient stimuli were larger than responses to the broadband noise. The average time to detect steady-state responses to transient stimuli was approximately 20 sec, which was a little faster than for amplitude modulated noise. Conclusions Auditory steady-state potentials evoked by amplitude modulated noise or transient stimuli might be useful in providing rapid and objective tests of hearing during screening procedures. Another approach might be to record responses to multiple frequency-specific stimuli and to evaluate the combined responses for a rapid indication that some hearing is present. The objective of this study was to compare the magnitudes of multiple auditory steady-state evoked responses (MASTER) evoked by several novel stimuli. Larger responses lead to increased accuracy and decreased testing durations. First we examined responses, in sleeping adults, to amplitude modulated (75–100 Hz) pure tones, broadband noise (BBN), and band-pass noise (BN). Responses to multiple BN stimuli, presented simultaneously, showed expected patterns of masking and enhancement, but did not elicit more robust responses than pure tones. However, the responses to BBN stimuli were much larger than the responses to tones and reached significance, on average, by 43 seconds. We also examined responses to rapidly presented transient stimuli, such as clicks, tone-pips, and brief noise bursts. The responses to transient stimuli were even larger than those to BBN stimuli. At 45 dB nHL, transient stimuli evoked responses by about 20 seconds. Auditory steady-state responses to BBN or clicks might be useful in providing rapid and objective hearing screening tests.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207