The difference in auditory memory between young and aged listeners with normal hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perceptual fusion of a noise with its delayed copies implies that there is a memory for maintaining a detailed representation of an arbitrary waveform. This auditory memory would be important for perceptually grouping correlated sounds and segregating uncorrelated sounds in noisy, reverberant environments, in which older listeners find it much more difficult than younger listeners to process signals. To determine the temporal extent of the auditory memory and whether it is affected by aging, this study investigated the detection of a break in correlation between two correlated broadband noises in younger and older listeners with normal hearing. The results show that younger listeners could detect a 100-ms break in correlation up to interaural delays ranging from 6.3 to 23.0 ms, suggesting that higher-order central mechanisms beyond the brainstem delay lines are likely to be involved in maintaining a memory trace of the fine details of the acoustic waveform. Aged listeners, however, could detect the break up to interaural delays ranging only from 6.7 to 9.7 ms, indicating the age-related decline in auditory memory. This decline may be one of the main causes leading to perceptual difficulties experienced by older listeners in noisy, reverberant environments. [Work supported by NSERCC and MSTC.]
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".