MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982269090

Physiological measurements of human binaural processing

2009· article· en· W2982269090 on OpenAlexaff
Terence W. Picton, Bernhard Roß

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinaural recordingMonauralStimulus (psychology)AudiologySound localizationPsychologyMagnetoencephalographyPerceptionPrecedence effectNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyCognitive psychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many different electric and magnetic responses to sound can be recorded as the human brain processes binaural information: (1) A binaural interaction component can be measured by comparing binaural responses to the sum of separate monaural responses. (2) Locating sounds in a reverberant environment can be examined by evaluating echo suppression. (3) Binaural beats can evoke following responses. (4) Responses can be evoked by binaural stimuli that are unmasked by changes in the interaural phase of stimulus or noise. (5) Occasional changes in the spatial location of a repeating sound can evoke a mismatch negativity. (6) A change in the binaural characteristics of an ongoing stimulus – interaural timing, correlation or phase – evokes a large N1-P2 response that is later than the response to the onset of a sound. The concomitant disruption and reinstatement of the 40-Hz steady state response can measure temporal perception and integration. (7) Moving sounds evoke large cortical responses when the movement begins and when a moving object crosses the midline. All paradigms may become useful in objectively demonstrating normal or abnormal binaural function in patients who cannot respond reliably during behavioral testing.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological ResearchSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207