MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093252337 · doi:10.1121/1.1506367

Place specificity of multiple auditory steady-state responses

2002· article· en· W2093252337 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony T. Herdman, Terence W. Picton, David R. Stapells

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSteady state (chemistry)AcousticsComputer scienceAudiologyPhysicsChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) were elicited by simultaneously presenting multiple AM (amplitude-modulated) tones with carrier frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz and modulation frequencies of 77, 85, 93, and 102 Hz, respectively. Responses were also evoked by separately presenting single 500- or 2000-Hz AM tones. The objectives of this study were (i) to determine the cochlear place specificity of single and multiple ASSRs using high-pass noise masking and derived-band responses, and (ii) to determine if there were any differences between single- and multiple-stimulus conditions. For all carrier frequencies, derived-band ASSRs for 1-octave-wide derived bands ranging in center frequency from 0.25 to 8 kHz had maximum amplitudes within a 1/2 octave of the carrier frequency. For simultaneously presented AM tones of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, bandwidths for the function of derived-band ASSR amplitude by derived-band center frequency were 476, 737, 1177, and 3039 Hz, respectively. There were no significant differences when compared to bandwidths of 486 and 1371 for ASSRs to AM tones of 500 or 2000 Hz presented separately. Results indicate that ASSRs to moderately intense stimuli (60 dB SPL) reflect activation of reasonably narrow cochlear regions, regardless of presenting AM tones simultaneously or separately.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations85
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207