MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118107161 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2000.898042

An advanced software tool for evaluation and rehabilitation of cochlear prosthesis users

2002· article· en· W2118107161 on OpenAlexaff
Z. Chtourou, J. Mouïne, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationCochlear implantProcess (computing)Computer scienceSoftwareCochleaCochlear implantationHearing aidProsthesisAudiologyHuman–computer interactionMedicineArtificial intelligencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cochlear implants are now widely used as a mean for restoring hearing to profoundly deaf people. There is a great variety in performance of the implanted patients, this depends on the state of the cochlea and the remaining nervous terminations, and also it depends on the site and degree of insertion of the electrodes, on the stimulation strategy and even on the rehabilitation process. After the implantation of the prosthesis, the patient must go through a fitting process, and a long procedure of evaluation and rehabilitation. This paper will present an advanced software used by physicians and technicians for the fitting of cochlear implants and the evaluation of the outcomes and that can be used by either specialists or patients during the rehabilitation process. This tool is essentially composed of two parts. The first part is used for the fitting of the implant; it determines the dynamic range of the electric current that can be used with the patient. It also sets which of the different stimulation channels is exploitable. The second part is used for the testing and the evaluation of the outcomes of different stimulation strategies. This part can be used by the clinician as well as by the patient alone to practice with recorded sounds. All published stimulation strategies can be tested with this software and it's easy to use with all the known cochlear prostheses. It is also suitable for researchers that want to experience new stimuli patterns or stimulation algorithms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→