Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults often have more difficulty listening in challenging environments than their younger adult counterparts. On the one hand, auditory aging can exacerbate and/or masquerade as cognitive difficulties when auditory processing is stressed in challenging listening situations. On the other hand, an older listener can overcome some auditory processing difficulties by deploying compensatory cognitive processing, especially when there is supportive context. Supportive context may be provided by redundant cues in the external signal(s) and/or by internally stored knowledge about structures that are functionally significant in communication. It seems that listeners may achieve correct word identification in various ways depending on the challenges and supports available in complex auditory scenes. We will review evidence suggesting that older adults benefit as much or more than younger adults from supportive context at multiple levels where expectations or constraints may be related to redundancies in semantic, syntactic, lexical, phonological, or other sub-phonemic cues in the signal, and/or to expert knowledge of structures at these levels.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it