MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095657844 · doi:10.1002/hbm.20043

The effect of MR scanner noise on auditory cortex activity using fMRI

2004· article· en· W2095657844 on OpenAlexafffund
Carrie J. Scarff, Joseph C. Dort, Jos J. Eggermont, Bradley G. Goodyear

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation Pour l'Audition
KeywordsTonotopyLoudnessAuditory cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNoise (video)ScannerAuditory perceptionPsychologyAudiologyPhysicsPerceptionAcousticsNeuroscienceMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies are limited by the presence of noise produced by echo planar imaging (EPI). The current study quantifies the effect of MR scanner noise on psychophysical measures of the perception of loudness and on measures of tonotopy, the representation of auditory frequencies within the auditory cortex. Seven normal hearing adults were examined using tones of 5 different auditory frequencies (250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 Hz) of equal loudness. Using an imaging protocol with peak MR scanner noise at 1,460 Hz, the perception of loudness and detectable fMRI activity in response to a 1-kHz tone was less compared to other frequencies. When the imaging protocol was changed such that peak MR scanner noise occurred at 2,080 Hz, the perception of loudness and detectable fMRI activity in response to a 2-kHz tone was less compared to other frequencies. The reduction in the measured fMRI activity for tones near scanner frequencies may be due to an inflated scanner-induced baseline at those frequencies. In addition, fMRI activity decreased with increasing frequency, possibly due to the upward spread of masking of low-frequency, high-intensity tonal stimuli or the proximity of low-frequency core and belt areas of the auditory cortex. These results demonstrate the direct effect of scanner noise and high-intensity tonal stimuli on measurements of auditory cortex tonotopy.

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)0.001
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 score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations61
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207