MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2328732175 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31820a0281

The Effect of Presentation Level on Memory Performance

2011· article· en· W2328732175 sur OpenAlexafffund
Antje Heinrich, Bruce A. Schneider

Notice bibliographique

RevueEar and Hearing · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensAll Sum Research Center (Canada)University of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésAudiologyRecallPsychologyIntelligibility (philosophy)Word listWord (group theory)Cognitive psychologyLinguisticsMedicineComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: A loss of speech intelligibility at high presentation levels is called rollover. It is a phenomenon that increases in prevalence as people age. Whether the adverse effect of high presentation levels extends to processes subsequent to speech intelligibility, such as memory, is unknown. The present study examined this question on the basis of the previous finding that older but not younger adults showed memory impairment when acoustically distorted words were presented at 50 dB SL compared with an undistorted baseline presented at 65 dB SPL. One question investigated in the present study was whether a presentation level of 50 dB SL put older listeners at the cusp of rollover and whether this subsequently impaired memory. Moreover, we wanted to know whether and at what level it was possible to induce a similar impairment in younger listeners. Design: We used a paired-associate memory paradigm in which five word pairs per list were presented at a rate of 4 secs per word pair. After each list, the first word of one of the pairs was presented again and the listener was asked to recall the second word. Over the course of the experiment, all list positions were tested an equal number of times. The word pairs, which were acoustically distorted using a jittering algorithm, were presented at 40 dB SL to all younger and older participants and just below an uncomfortably loud level for younger listeners only. Intelligibility of the distorted words was equated across age groups for each presentation level. The effect of presentation level on memory performance was investigated and compared with data of a previous study that used the same design but presented the distorted and undistorted words at 50 dB SL to both age groups. A total of 58 younger and 24 older adults were tested in two experiments. Results: The results showed that for older adults, memory performance for distorted words was decreased in all list positions at a presentation level of 50 dB SL compared with 40 dB SL and an undistorted 65 dB SPL baseline. This effect did not occur for younger listeners. However, when younger adults were tested at a very high presentation level, they showed the same memory decrease compared with the baseline as older adults showed for 50 dB SL. Conclusions: A high presentation level of distorted words can adversely affect memory even after intelligibility is equated for. Moreover, older listeners are affected at lower presentation levels. Hence, the choice of sound level, particularly for older listeners, is important and may affect their level of cognitive performance beyond its effects on intelligibility. Higher presentation levels may not always lead to better performance when the task involves recall of words previously heard. Participants listened to lists of five temporally distorted (jittered) word pairs where the amount of temporal distortion, in all cases, was adjusted to produce an intelligibility of 91%. Memory for a word pair in a list varied with sound intensity. In older listeners, memory performance decreased when the presentation level was increased from 40 to 50 dB SL. In younger listeners, memory performance decreased when the presentation level was increased from 50 dB SL to just below an uncomfortably high level. Thus high sound levels, when coupled with distortion, can decrease memory even when intelligibility is unaffected.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,489
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,123

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,095
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,204 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEar and HearingMême sujetHearing Loss and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207