The influence of auditory training on measures of temporal resolution in younger and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deterioration in the ability to perceived rapid changes in auditory input is thought to contribute to the difficulties older adults experience when communicating in noise. Studies have demonstrated that the performance of young adults on auditory tasks improves with training. However, few studies have tested the degree to which practice improves auditory performance in older adults. A previous study examined the extent to which younger and older adults benefited from training when the task was to detect a gap in a narrow-band noise centered at 1 kHz. Significant improvements occurred in both age groups, indicating that auditory learning can still occur later in life. The present study examines if training improves performance when more than one auditory filter is activated. Twenty-four younger and older participants were trained for 10 days to detect a gap between a 2-kHz and a 1-kHz noise. Performance was assessed one day and one month after the last training session along with the extent to which the benefits generalized to other frequencies and the untrained ear. In addition, event-related potentials (ERPs) were obtained pre- and post-training to assess cortical changes in the response to temporal gaps. Initial results show improvement throughout training in both age groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".