MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Noise-induced Cochlear Synaptopathy and Signal Processing Disorders

2018· review· en· W2894521024 on OpenAlexaff
Heng-Chao Chen, Lijuan Shi, Lijie Liu, Shankai Yin, Steven J. Aiken, Jian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNeuroscienceAudiologyPsychologyNoise (video)BiologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noise-induced hidden hearing loss (NIHHL) has attracted great attention in hearing research and clinical audiology since the discovery of significant noise-induced synaptic damage in the absence of permanent threshold shifts (PTS) in animal models. Although the extant evidence for this damage is based on animal models, NIHHL likely occurs in humans as well. This review focuses on three issues concerning NIHHL that are somewhat controversial: (1) whether disrupted synapses can be re-established; (2) whether synaptic damage and repair are responsible for the initial temporal threshold shifts (TTS) and subsequent recovery; and (3) the relationship between the synaptic damage and repair processes and neural coding deficits. We conclude that, after a single, brief noise exposure, (1) the damaged and the totally destroyed synapses can be partially repaired, but the repaired synapses are functionally abnormal; (2) While deficits are observed in some aspects of neural responses related to temporal and intensity coding in the auditory nerve, we did not find strong evidence for hypothesized coding-in-noise deficits; (3) the sensitivity and the usefulness of the envelope following responses to amplitude modulation signals in detecting cochlear synaptopathy is questionable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscienceSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207