MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413902004 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1624499

The Greenwood function shows close alignment with pitch perceived by cochlear implant patients with long, flexible electrode arrays and fine-structure stimulation

2025· article· en· W4413902004 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Büchner, Tobias Weller, Richard T. Penninger, Luke Helpard, Hanif M. Ladak, Sumit Agrawal, Thomas Lenarz, Daniel Schurzig

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsCochlear implantStimulationAudiologyElectrodeImplantPsychologyMaterials scienceNeuroscienceBiomedical engineeringMedicinePhysicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The natural, tonotopic frequency distribution of the inner ear is typically described by the Greenwood function, which logarithmically projects the audible frequency spectrum onto the intracochlear basilar membrane. Recent developments in cochlear implant (CI) programming aim to improve sound quality and music perception through consideration of the frequency distribution as described by the Greenwood function when assigning frequency bands to the individual contacts of the electrode array. This approach is commonly referred to as anatomy-based fitting (ABF). However, empirical validation of the Greenwood function to accurately describe pitch as perceived by CI users is lacking. Methods: Twelve CI patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) participated in the study. A pitch matching task was conducted at four different appointments and with two different fitting maps (standard and ABF). At each test appointment, participants were asked to set the frequency of a pure tone presented through a loudspeaker to the pitch perceived when stimulated with the single contacts of the CI electrode array. The cochlear anatomy of the patients was reconstructed based on clinical imaging to derive the location of the stimulating contacts relative to the basilar membrane, allowing for the comparison of the pitch perceived by the patients to the frequency suggested by the Greenwood function for each stimulating contact. Results: In general, subjective pitch percepts were found to agree well with the frequency suggested by the Greenwood function independent of subject, contact, or applied fitting map. Differences between pitch matches and Greenwood were found to be not statistically significant. At least part of the outcomes of previous studies reporting a basal frequency shift can be explained by the tonotopic mapping functions applied within these studies. Discussion: The present results suggest that the Greenwood function is well-suited for representing the tonotopic frequency distribution not only for normal hearing subjects but for CI recipients as well. Further advances in frequency mapping should also take the neural health of the cochlea into account, allowing for additional individualization of frequency mapping in CIs.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207