MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2170209768 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.579858

Cochlear implant stimulation based on vector quantization

2002· article· en· W2170209768 on OpenAlexaff
Réjean Fontaine, S. Pourmehdi, J. Mouïne, F. Duval, Maoxin Wei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantCodebookVector quantizationCochleaPassbandFormantComputer scienceSpeech recognitionSIGNAL (programming language)Signal processingStimulationAlgorithmDigital signal processingElectronic engineeringEngineeringBand-pass filterAudiologyMedicineNeuroscienceVowelPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cochlear stimulation algorithms usually extract some features of the voice like fundamental frequency, formants, energy in a passband filter, before exciting the cochlea through electrodes. They generally expose the patient to an infinite set of stimuli. In fact, it is well known that patients, on the first stimulation, don't know what they are hearing. To limit the number of stimulation sets, we propose to use vector quantization. This data compression algorithm is based on the use of a codebook which contains N referenced signals. The received signal is compared with all signals in the codebook and the one that is the nearest to the input signal is chosen. It is then possible to perform the stimulation of the cochlea on the basis of the chosen signal instead of the input signal. In that way, it is possible to minimize the number of stimulation sets of the cochlear implant.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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