Auditory Brainstem Responses in Dyslexia: Comparison between Acoustic Click and Verbal Stimulus Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the use of auditory brainstem response (ABR) by classic clicks and verbal stimuli in young dyslexic adults to identify latency abnormalities. METHODS: Subjects included 10 dyslexic adults and 10 age-, sex-, IQ-, education-, and hearing sensitivity-matched normal subjects. Both groups had normal auditory status. Measurements included the absolute latencies of waves I through V; the interpeak latencies I-III, III-V, and I-V elicited by acoustic click; and the negative peak latencies of A and B waves, as well as the interpeak latencies of A-B elicited by the verbal stimulus "ma," created on a digital speech synthesizer. RESULTS: The measured latencies and interpeak latencies in response to both clicks and verbal stimuli were found delayed in eight dyslexic subjects, although they did not reach the level of significant difference. However, two dyslexic subjects had significantly delayed peak and interpeak latencies elicited by verbal stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: There are dyslexic subjects who may have abnormalities in acoustic representation of a speech sound as low as the auditory brainstem, as elicited by the verbal stimulus "ma."
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".