MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187394434

An Investigation of Electrovestibulography and Vestibular Field Potentials

2012· article· en· W2187394434 on OpenAlexaff
Grant Rutherford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWaveletNoise (video)SIGNAL (programming language)Signal processingFilter (signal processing)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmComputer visionDigital signal processing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An emerging technique called Electrovestibulography (EVestG) shows promise for the diagnosis of various balance and mood disorders. This technique records the electrical signal from the external ear during evoked vestibular responses. In order to extract the vestibular signal from a recording which contains many other signals (muscle artifacts, cochlear responses, and environmental noise), a signal processing technique called the Neural Event Extraction Routine (NEER) is used [1]. NEER currently consists of four major operations. In the first step is an adaptive filter is applied to the signal to reduce noise and artifacts as much as possible. The second step is to separate the signal into segments corresponding to the direction of acceleration applied to the subject. The third step involves filtering the signal using a set of wavelets, each tuned to a different frequency. The final step is to use a set of heuristics on the phase and magnitude of the wavelet responses to identify possible evoked field potentials. These possible field potentials are then averaged to obtain a typical field potential, which can be used to identify disorders [2]. So far, a number of refinements have been made to the original algorithm. A rewrite for computational efficiency has allowed much faster processing of results. Also, changes to the segmentation process have been investigated. Numerous tests have been done to measure the reproducibility of EVestG data under various experimental conditions. Additionally, initial work has been done on a procedure for objectively evaluating the performance of the NEER algorithm using simulated signals. Such a procedure will allow us to compare the current algorithm with other techniques. Future work will use the characterization of the evoked vestibular field potential from animal studies to guide improvements to the NEER algorithm. A possible alternative algorithm will be investigated which will use matched filters based on expected field potential shapes.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207