MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331165008 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000071

Using a Concha Electrode to Measure Response Patterns Based on the Amplitudes of Cochlear Microphonic Waveforms Across Acoustic Frequencies in Normal-Hearing Subjects

2014· article· en· W2331165008 on OpenAlexafffund
Ming Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta Hospital
FundersOklahoma Agricultural Experiment StationGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsCochleaAcousticsEar canalAmplitudeBasilar membraneTone burstElectrodeWaveformMicrophonicsPhysicsAudiologyMaterials scienceMedicineVoltageOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: Compared to a conventional click-evoked cochlear microphonic (CM) in an electrocochleogram, a tone-burst evoked CM waveform (CMW) is unconventional and the frequency band is narrower. Furthermore, compared to conventional CM measurement techniques such as the use of a tympanic or a canal electrode, the use of a concha electrode is the least invasive and an unconventional technique in the measurement of CMs. Finally, compared to CM responses measured by conventional approaches, the response pattern obtained from the amplitude of far-field recorded CMWs across acoustic frequencies is unconventional. Our objective is to combine these three unconventional elements together into a unique approach, which may provide potential benefits for clinical diagnosis and cochlear research. Design: Using a concha electrode, CMWs in response to a 14 msec tone burst were recorded in seven normal-hearing subjects. The CMW amplitudes recorded over different acoustic frequencies were compared to each other to produce a frequency response pattern. Results: Two features were observed in the response pattern: the CMW amplitude decreased upon an increase in frequency of a tone burst stimulus, and the decrease occurred faster at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies. Conclusions: We confirmed a measurable CMW response pattern using the concha electrode. We propose that the pattern’s features may be partly due to variation along the cochlea of the activities and volume of hair cells and possibly also the physical properties of the basilar membrane. The clinical importance of these results may be related mainly to seven features of the CMW, including electrode locations, response patterns, inclusion of low frequencies, and uniqueness of CMWs (versus otoacoustic emissions, auditory brainstem responses, shorter stimulus, and audiograms). Limitations, such as signal to noise ratio, also exist. After further study, the concha electrode may be used in the clinic and in research, and the response pattern may be used to interpret the CMW measurement. Compared to conventional click-evoked cochlear microphonics (CMs), 14-msec long toneburst-evoked CM waveforms (CMWs) are unique as their band is much narrower (i.e., more frequency-specific). Such CMWs could be recorded using a concha electrode, which is unique as it is less invasive than a conventional tympanic or a canal electrode. Combining the concha electrode with CMWs is interesting as it allows measuring CMW response patterns, which is also unique. In normal hearing subjects, CMW amplitudes decrease with frequency faster at high than low frequencies. This pattern may serve as a norm or a foundation for further studies on abnormal hearing subjects.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207