MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938821720 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000947

Effective Masking Levels for Bone Conduction Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli in Infants and Adults with Normal Hearing

2020· article· en· W2938821720 on OpenAlexaff
Ricky WK Lau, Susan A. Small

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyBone conductionCochleaMedicineAuditory brainstem responseMasking (illustration)Hearing lossBrainstemLatency (audio)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to investigate effective masking levels (EMLs) for bone conduction (BC) auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing in infants and adults. Early hearing detection and intervention programs aim to limit delays in identifying ear-specific type/degree of hearing loss in infants using the ABR. Ear-specific assessment poses challenges as sound delivered to one ear can travel across the skull and activate the contralateral cochlea. Wave V amplitude and latency measures ipsilateral and contralateral to the bone oscillator can be compared to isolate the test cochlea in some cases; however, when these findings are equivocal, clinical masking is required. This study aims to determine EMLs for ABRs elicited to 500- and 2000-Hz BC stimuli for normal-hearing infants (0 to 18 months) and adults. DESIGN: Participants were 21 adults (18 to 54 years) and 24 infants (5 to 47 weeks) with normal hearing. BC 500- and 2000-Hz brief tonal stimuli at intensities approximating normal levels were presented via a B-71 oscillator (infants: 20 dB nHL at 500 Hz and 30 dB nHL at 2000 Hz; adults: 500 and 2000 Hz at 20 and 30 dB nHL, respectively). White noise masking was presented binaurally via ER-3A earphones (22 to 82 dB SPL; 10-dB steps). The lowest level of masking to eliminate a BC response was deemed the EML. RESULTS: For stimuli presented at 20 dB nHL, adult mean (1 SD) EMLs for 500 and 2000 Hz were 65 (9) and 53 (6) dB SPL, respectively. Mean EMLs for infants were 80 (6) dB SPL for 500 Hz at 20 dB nHL and 64 (9) dB SPL for 2000 Hz at 30 dB nHL. Compared to adults, infants required approximately 13 dB more masking at 500 Hz but a similar amount of masking at 2000 Hz. Infants required 26 dB more masking at 500 versus 2000 Hz, whereas, adults required only 12 dB more masking. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum binaural EMLs for infant BC responses elicited to 500 Hz at 20 dB nHL are 82 dB SPL, and for 2000 Hz at 30 and 40 dB nHL, respectively, are 72 and 82 dB SPL. Monaural masking levels for the nontest ear (assuming 10 dB of interaural attenuation) recommended clinically are as follows: (1) 500 Hz: 72 and 82 dB SPL at 20 and 30 dB nHL, respectively; and (2) 2000 Hz: 62, 72, and 82 dB SPL at 30, 40, and 50 dB nHL, respectively. Unsafe levels of white noise would be needed to effectively mask at greater stimulus levels.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207