Effect of increasing duration of stimulation on the electrically evoked auditory brainstem and middle latency responses in pediatric cochlear implant users.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electrophysiologic responses used to predict behavioural stimulation levels in implant users are typically evoked with a single-pulse stimulus versus higher-rate pulse trains of longer duration. Unfortunately, electrophysiologic measures tend to overestimate behavioural responses. It may be possible to improve the predictive ability of evoked potential thresholds by increasing the duration of the stimulus. We asked if auditory brainstem and middle latency responses can be reliably measured using electrical pulse trains of increasing duration. DESIGN: Evoked potential testing was performed in five pediatric N24RE cochlear implant users aged 7.6 to 14.9 years. SETTING: Cochlear Implant Program, Cochlear Implant Laboratory, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. METHODS: Responses were electrically evoked for durations of 2, 6, and 10 milliseconds by single pulses and pulse trains of 500 pulses per second. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) and evoked middle latency response (EMLR) waveform latencies and amplitudes were compared between durations. RESULTS: Clear and replicable EABRs and EMLRs were recorded for all durations. There was no significant change in EABR wave eV latency relative to the stimulus offset. There was no significant change in EMLR wave latencies relative to the stimulus onset. This was confirmed by a linear decrease in the interwave latency between the EABR wave eV and the EMLR wave eNa. No significant changes in wave amplitude were found as the pulse train duration increased for the EABR or the EMLR. CONCLUSIONS: EABRs are dominated by the stimulus offset, whereas EMLRs appear to be dominated by stimulus onset. Clear, unchanging EABRs and EMLRs indicated that electrophysiologic measures were a valid tool for increasing durations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".