MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2796525647 · doi:10.1121/1.5030921

Click reception in the harbor porpoise (<i>Phocoena phocoena</i>): Effects of electrode and contact transducer location on the auditory brainstem response

2018· article· en· W2796525647 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Mulsow, James J. Finneran, Dorian S. Houser, Chad Nordstrom, Lance Barrett‐Lennard, Robert Burkard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsVancouver Aquarium
FundersU.S. Navy
KeywordsPorpoisePhocoenaRostrumAuditory brainstem responseBrainstemAudiogramAcousticsAudiologyAnatomyMedicineBiologyHearing lossPhysicsNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike terrestrial mammals that have unambiguous aerial sound transmission pathways via the outer ear and tympanum, sound reception pathways in most odontocetes are not well understood. Recent studies have used auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurements to examine sound reception pathways. This study sought to determine how sound source placements, recording electrode arrangements, and ABR peak analyses affect interpretations of sound reception in the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Click stimuli were delivered in air from a contact transducer ("jawphone"). Early ABR peaks (representing auditory nerve responses), and later peaks reflecting higher brainstem activity, were analyzed across jawphone and recording electrode positions. Auditory nerve responses were similar for jawphone placements from the ipsilateral posterior mandible to the tip of the rostrum. Later peaks, however, suggested a possible region of highest sensitivity midway between the posterior mandible and the rostrum tip. These findings are generally similar to previous data for porpoises. In contrast to auditory nerve responses that were largest when recorded near the ipsilateral meatus, later ABR peaks were largest when recorded with a contralateral (opposing) electrode. These results provide information on the processes underlying peaks of the ABR, and inform stimulus delivery and ABR recording parameters in odontocete sound reception studies.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→