Crossed and uncrossed acoustic reflex growth functions in normal-hearing adults, typically developing children, and children with suspected auditory processing disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous data suggested that children with suspected auditory processing disorders (APD) often show elevated or absent acoustic reflex thresholds, especially in crossed conditions (e.g. Allen & Allan, 2014 ). This study further explored these effects by measuring acoustic reflex growth functions (ARGF). DESIGN: Crossed and uncrossed ARGF slopes were obtained by linear fits between reflex amplitudes and increases in activator level from threshold to 15 dB above it. STUDY SAMPLE: Normal-hearing adults, typically developing children and children with reported listening difficulties and suspected of having an APD, participated. RESULTS: The ARGF slopes were shallower in crossed than in uncrossed conditions for all groups but the magnitude of the effect was significantly greater in the children with suspected APD. There were no differences between the typically developing children and the adults. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest shallower ARGFs in children with suspected APD. Given the role of the acoustic reflex in facilitating hearing speech in noise these findings may begin to shed light on physiologic explanations for some of the difficulties that are reported by children with suspected APD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".