Age-Related Changes in Temporal Processing: Implications for Speech Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two aspects of age-related declines in auditory temporal processing may contribute to the difficulties that older adults have perceiving speech in everyday listening situations: ability to code the temporal properties of the envelope; and the temporal fine structure of speech. Gap detection and duration discrimination play a role in coding temporal properties of the envelope, including cues to phoneme contrasts. Significant age-related declines are found in these psychoacoustic measures but only when sounds are short; corresponding age-related declines are found in discriminating specific phonemic contrasts based on gaps. Significant correlations between gap detection thresholds and word recognition are found, at least in some studies, in conditions of noise, reverberation, or speeded speech. It is suggested that coding of the temporal fine structure of speech is compromised by age-related loss of neural synchrony. Loss of synchrony in older adults could account for poorer frequency discrimination at low frequencies and problems using harmonic structure to segregate voices from competing signals. These declines in temporal processing are observed in older adults with good audiograms and are not correlated with audiometric threshold. More informed audiological management and rehabilitation requires the consideration of specific age-related temporal processing declines. KEYWORD Temporal processing - auditory aging - speech perception - gap detection - neural synchrony
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".