MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168669280 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm153

Cortical Steady-State Responses to Central and Peripheral Auditory Beats

2007· article· en· W2168669280 on OpenAlexaff
Rossitza Draganova, Andreas Wollbrink, Christo Pantev

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDichotic listeningStimulus (psychology)MagnetoencephalographyAudiologyBeat (acoustics)Stimulus onset asynchronyPeripheralPsychologyNeurosciencePerceptionElectroencephalographyPhysicsAcousticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different types of generation mechanisms of 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) were investigated using diotic and dichotic stimulation with 500- and 540-Hz pure tones of 1.0-s duration and 2.0-s stimulus onset asynchrony. When the sum of both tones was presented to both ears simultaneously, they interacted at cochlear level and resulted in perception of a 40-Hz beat termed "peripheral beat." Dichotic presentation of the 500-Hz tone to one ear and the 540-Hz tone to the other one resulted in beat perception as the effect of central interaction, most likely in the superior olivary nuclei and was termed "central beat." ASSR and transient N1m responses were found in the averaged 151-channel whole-head magnetoencephalographic recordings under both stimulus conditions and were modeled with single spatiotemporal equivalent current dipoles in both hemispheres. The ASSR sources in both conditions were more anterior, more inferior, and more medial compared with N1m sources. Right hemispheric lateralization of the magnetic field strength was found for the ASSR in both stimulus conditions. Although the central and peripheral beat interacted at different levels of the auditory system, the initial responses were projected along the afferent auditory pathway and activated common cortical sources.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations120
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207