MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326170554 · doi:10.1063/1.4939422

Dynamics of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions

2015· article· en· W2326170554 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Bergevin, Anthony Salerno

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAudiogramComputer scienceNeurophysiologyBasilar membranePhysicsAcousticsNeuroscienceHearing lossPsychologyAudiologyCochlea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) have become a hallmark feature in modern theories of an 'active' inner ear, given their numerous correlations to auditory function (e.g., threshold microstructure, neurophysiological tuning curves), near universality across tetrapod classes, and physiological correlates at the single hair cell level.However, while several different classes of nonlinear models exist that describe the mechanisms underlying SOAE generation (e.g., coupled limit-cycle oscillators, global standing waves), there is still disagreement as to precisely which biophysical concepts are at work.Such is further compounded by the idiosyncratic nature of SOAEs: Not all ears emit, and when present, SOAE activity can occur at seemingly arbitrary frequencies (though always within the most sensitive range of the audiogram) and in several forms (e.g., peaks, broad 'baseline' plateaus).The goal of the present study was to develop new signal processing and stimulation techniques that would allow for novel features of SOAE activity to be revealed.To this end, we analyzed data from a variety of different species: human, lizard, and owl.First, we explored several strategies for examining SOAE waveforms in the absence of external stimuli to further ascertain what constitutes 'self-sustained sinusoids' versus 'filtered noise'.We found that seemingly similar peaks in the spectral domain could exhibit key differences in the time domain, which we interpret as providing critical information about the underlying oscillators and their coupling.Second, we introduced dynamic stimuli (swept-tones, tone bursts) at a range of levels, whose interaction with SOAEs could be visualized in the time-frequency domain.Aside from offering a readily accessible way to visualize many previously reported effects (e.g., entrainment, facilitation), we observed several new features such as subharmonic distortion generation and competing pulling/pushing effects when multiple tones were present.Furthermore, the tone burst data provide quantitative bounds on the dynamics of the relaxation oscillations.These data should provide new insights into how precisely how SOAE generators are related to (the more commonly measured) OAEs evoked via external stimuli and presumably speak to the robustness of the hair cell as the underlying basis for SOAE activity.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207