MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944424715 · doi:10.1109/sitis.2018.00020

Estimating the Properties of the Single-Trial Speech Auditory Brainstem Response Using an Accurate AR Model

2018· article· en· W2944424715 on OpenAlexafffund
Anwar Fallatah, Hilmi R. Dajani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSABR volatility modelParametric statisticsComputer scienceStatisticsSpeech recognitionMathematicsEconometricsStochastic volatilityVolatility (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human speech Auditory Brainstem Response (sABR) is an electrophysiological response with potentially important clinical and practical applications. However, because of the very low SNR of the signal, long recording times are usually needed over which the responses from a large number of trials are coherently averaged. Therefore, it is important to understand the properties of the single trial sABR, as this can help in developing methods to detect this response using a smaller number of trials. This paper presents a parametric model of averaged human sABR that is used to estimate the properties of a single-trial response. The Autoregression (AR) method is followed to model the sABR at four different signal qualities, based on recorded data coherently averaged over different numbers of trials. The properties of the modeled sABR are compared with the recorded ones in the time and frequency domains. This model is also used to estimate a single-trial sABR. The results show that the properties of the modeled responses (statistical distribution, SNR, noise power) are similar to the recorded sABRs. Moreover, coherent averaging based on the estimated single-trial sABR produces a comparable theoretical SNR increase, similar exponential relation between the SNR and number of averaged trials, and a similar power spectrum to the recorded sABR.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207