MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2621374760 · doi:10.3766/jaaa.15136

Acoustic Reflexes in Normal-Hearing Adults, Typically Developing Children, and Children with Suspected Auditory Processing Disorder: Thresholds, Real-Ear Corrections, and the Role of Static Compliance on Estimates

2016· article· en· W2621374760 sur OpenAlexaff
Udit Saxena, Chris Allan, Prudence Allen

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAudiologyReflexEar canalAcoustic reflexMedicineMiddle earTypically developingHearing lossPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested elevated reflex thresholds in children with auditory processing disorders (APDs). However, some aspects of the child's ear such as ear canal volume and static compliance of the middle ear could possibly affect the measurements of reflex thresholds and thus impact its interpretation. Sound levels used to elicit reflexes in a child's ear may be higher than predicted by calibration in a standard 2-cc coupler, and lower static compliance could make visualization of very small changes in impedance at threshold difficult. For this purpose, it is important to evaluate threshold data with consideration of differences between children and adults. PURPOSE: A set of studies were conducted. The first compared reflex thresholds obtained using standard clinical procedures in children with suspected APD to that of typically developing children and adults to test the replicability of previous studies. The second study examined the impact of ear canal volume on estimates of reflex thresholds by applying real-ear corrections. Lastly, the relationship between static compliance and reflex threshold estimates was explored. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research is a set of case-control studies with a repeated measures design. STUDY SAMPLE: The first study included data from 20 normal-hearing adults, 28 typically developing children, and 66 children suspected of having an APD. The second study included 28 normal-hearing adults and 30 typically developing children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In the first study, crossed and uncrossed reflex thresholds were measured in 5-dB step size. Reflex thresholds were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA). In the second study, uncrossed reflex thresholds, real-ear correction, ear canal volume, and static compliance were measured. Reflex thresholds were measured using a 1-dB step size. The effect of real-ear correction and static compliance on reflex threshold was examined using RM-ANOVA and Pearson correlation coefficient, respectively. RESULTS: Study 1 replicated previous studies showing elevated reflex thresholds in many children with suspected APD when compared to data from adults using standard clinical procedures, especially in the crossed condition. The thresholds measured in children with suspected APD tended to be higher than those measured in the typically developing children. There were no significant differences between the typically developing children and adults. However, when real-ear calibrated stimulus levels were used, it was found that children's thresholds were elicited at higher levels than in the adults. A significant relationship between reflex thresholds and static compliance was found in the adult data, showing a trend for higher thresholds in ears with lower static compliance, but no such relationship was found in the data from the children. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that reflex measures in children should be adjusted for real-ear-to-coupler differences before interpretation. The data in children with suspected APD support previous studies suggesting abnormalities in reflex thresholds. The lack of correlation between threshold and static compliance estimates in children as was observed in the adults may suggest a nonmechanical explanation for age and clinically related effects.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations7
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologyMême sujetHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsTravaux en français237 207