MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589646791 · doi:10.1093/chemse/bjx008

The Effect of Stimulus Duration on the Nostril Localization of Eucalyptol

2017· article· en· W2589646791 on OpenAlexaff
Johannes Frasnelli, Florence Gingras‐Lessard, Joëlle Robert, Jason Steffener

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Senses · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversity of OttawaCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkUniversité de MontréalConcordia UniversityHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Lateralization of brain functionAudiologyNostrilEucalyptolN100StimulationPsychologyPerceptionExposure durationNeuroscienceMedicineEvent-related potentialCognitive psychologyChemistryCognitionNoseAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trigeminal system is a chemosensory system participating in the perception of most odorants, which allows for the perception of diverse sensations including the freshness of eucalyptus or the spiciness of pepper. The lateralization task, that is, the identification of the stimulated nostril in a monorhinal stimulation paradigm is only possible following trigeminal stimulation and allows therefore for the assessment of the trigeminal sensitivity also in a clinical setting. In this study, we aimed to determine the effects of the duration of stimuli on the lateralization task. To this end, we asked 32 young and healthy subjects perform the lateralization task while being exposed to eucalyptol stimuli ranging between 100 and 1250 ms. We found that participants performed on average at chance for stimuli shorter than 500 ms, and observed increasing accuracy for stimuli with longer durations. In conclusion, these data suggest that 500 ms represents a threshold for the lateralization of eucalyptol stimuli. Therefore, when trigeminal sensitivity is tested in a clinical setting, eucalyptol stimuli should have a duration of at least 500 ms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical SensesSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207