MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759454636 · doi:10.1177/1550059417733386

Neural Processing of Musical and Vocal Emotions Through Cochlear Implants Simulation

2017· article· en· W2759454636 on OpenAlexafffund
Duha G. Ahmed, Sebastian Paquette, Anthony Zeitouni, Alexandre Lehmann

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research
FundersCentre for Research on Brain, Language and Music
KeywordsCochlear implantAudiologyLatency (audio)N100PsychologyActive listeningMusicalSpeech recognitionCognitionEvent-related potentialComputer scienceCommunicationNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cochlear implants (CIs) partially restore the sense of hearing in the deaf. However, the ability to recognize emotions in speech and music is reduced due to the implant's electrical signal limitations and the patient's altered neural pathways. Electrophysiological correlations of these limitations are not yet well established. Here we aimed to characterize the effect of CIs on auditory emotion processing and, for the first time, directly compare vocal and musical emotion processing through a CI-simulator. We recorded 16 normal hearing participants' electroencephalographic activity while listening to vocal and musical emotional bursts in their original form and in a degraded (CI-simulated) condition. We found prolonged P50 latency and reduced N100-P200 complex amplitude in the CI-simulated condition. This points to a limitation in encoding sound signals processed through CI simulation. When comparing the processing of vocal and musical bursts, we found a delay in latency with the musical bursts compared to the vocal bursts in both conditions (original and CI-simulated). This suggests that despite the cochlear implants' limitations, the auditory cortex can distinguish between vocal and musical stimuli. In addition, it adds to the literature supporting the complexity of musical emotion. Replicating this study with actual CI users might lead to characterizing emotional processing in CI users and could ultimately help develop optimal rehabilitation programs or device processing strategies to improve CI users' quality of life.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207