MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W17524595 · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.04.003

Role of The Cochlea and Efferent System in Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

2014· article· en· W17524595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sriram Boothalingam

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Education and Counseling · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEfferentCochleaAuditory systemAudiologyPsychologyCommunicationNeuroscienceMedicineAfferent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory processing disorder (APD) is characterized by difficulty listening in noisy environments despite normal hearing thresholds. APD was previously thought to be restricted to deficits in the central auditory system. The current work sought to investigate brainstem and peripheral mechanisms that may contribute to difficulties in speech understanding in noise in children with suspected APD (sAPD). Three mechanisms in particular were investigated: cochlear tuning, efferent function, and spatial hearing. Cochlear tuning was measured using stimulus frequency otoacoustic emission (SFOAE) group delay. Results indicate that children suspected with APD have atypically sharp cochlear tuning, and reduced medial olivocochlear (MOC) functioning. Sharper-than-typical cochlear tuning may lead to increased forward masking. On the contrary, binaural efferent function probed with a forward masked click evoked OAE (CEOAE) paradigm indicated that MOC function was not different in typically developing (TD) children and children suspected with APD. A third study with multiple OAE types sought to address this contradiction. Despite numerically smaller MOC inhibition in the sAPD group, MOC function was not significantly different between the two groups. Finally, spatial release from masking, localization-in-noise and interaural time difference thresholds were compared in TD and children with sAPD. Results indicate no significant difference in spatial hearing abilities between the two groups. Non-significant findings at group level in these studies may be related to the large heterogeneity in problems associated with APD. Fragmentation of APD into deficit specific disorders may facilitate research in identification of the specific anatomical underpinnings to listening problems in APD. Prior to conducting studies in children, three studies were conducted to optimize stimulus characteristics. Results of these studies indicate that the MOC may not be especially sensitive to 100 Hz amplitude modulation, as previously reported. Click stimulus presentation rates >25 Hz activate the ipsilateral MOC reflex in typical MOC assays, contaminating contralateral MOC inhibition of CEOAEs. Finally, localization-in-noise abilities of TD children are on par with adults for a white noise masker, but not for speech-babble. This finding suggests that despite maturation of physiological mechanisms required to localize in noise, non-auditory factors may restrict the ability of children in processing complex signals.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Education and CounselingSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207