Refractory effects of the N1 event-related potential in experienced cochlear implant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if cochlear implant (CI) patients exhibit a temporal processing deficit for auditory stimuli, by examining refractory effects of the N1 event-related potential (ERP) component. DESIGN: CI patients and normally-hearing controls were tested in an auditory refractory period paradigm while ERP recordings were collected across the scalp. Participants were presented with brief 500-Hz tones that were separated by inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) of 500, 1000, or 3000 ms. The amplitude of the N1 was examined as a function of ISI within each group. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten adult CI patients and 13 age-matched normally-hearing controls were tested. Patients had long-lasting severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss prior to implantation, and a minimum of two years experience with CI activation. RESULTS: Unlike normally-hearing controls, CI users showed no refractory effect for tones at 500 ms ISIs compared to 1000 ms. However, similar to controls, recovery from refractoriness was observed in anterior locations at 3000 ms. CONCLUSION: The refractory period threshold, defined as the minimum ISI where different N1 amplitudes are elicited, is greater than 1000 ms in CI patients; at least double that of normally-hearing controls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".