Models of the electrically stimulated binaural system: A review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an increasing number of countries, the standard treatment for deaf individuals is moving toward the implantation of two cochlear implants. Today's device technology and fitting procedure, however, appears as if the two implants would serve two independent ears and brains. Many experimental studies have demonstrated that after careful matching and balancing of left and right stimulation in controlled laboratory studies most patients have almost normal sensitivity to interaural level differences and some sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITDs). Mechanisms underlying the limited ITD sensitivity are still poorly understood and many different aspects may contribute. Recent pioneering computational approaches identified some of the functional implications the electric input imposes on the neural brainstem circuits. Simultaneously these studies have raised new questions and certainly demonstrated that further refinement of the model stages is necessary. They join the experimental study's conclusions that binaural device technology, binaural fitting, specific speech coding strategies, and binaural signal processing algorithms are obviously missing components to maximize the benefit of bilateral implantation. Within this review, the existing models of the electrically stimulated binaural system are explained, compared, and discussed from a viewpoint of a "CI device with auditory system" and from that of neurophysiological research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it