MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328732175 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31820a0281

The Effect of Presentation Level on Memory Performance

2011· article· en· W2328732175 on OpenAlexafffund
Antje Heinrich, Bruce A. Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsAll Sum Research Center (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAudiologyRecallPsychologyIntelligibility (philosophy)Word listWord (group theory)Cognitive psychologyLinguisticsMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: A loss of speech intelligibility at high presentation levels is called rollover. It is a phenomenon that increases in prevalence as people age. Whether the adverse effect of high presentation levels extends to processes subsequent to speech intelligibility, such as memory, is unknown. The present study examined this question on the basis of the previous finding that older but not younger adults showed memory impairment when acoustically distorted words were presented at 50 dB SL compared with an undistorted baseline presented at 65 dB SPL. One question investigated in the present study was whether a presentation level of 50 dB SL put older listeners at the cusp of rollover and whether this subsequently impaired memory. Moreover, we wanted to know whether and at what level it was possible to induce a similar impairment in younger listeners. Design: We used a paired-associate memory paradigm in which five word pairs per list were presented at a rate of 4 secs per word pair. After each list, the first word of one of the pairs was presented again and the listener was asked to recall the second word. Over the course of the experiment, all list positions were tested an equal number of times. The word pairs, which were acoustically distorted using a jittering algorithm, were presented at 40 dB SL to all younger and older participants and just below an uncomfortably loud level for younger listeners only. Intelligibility of the distorted words was equated across age groups for each presentation level. The effect of presentation level on memory performance was investigated and compared with data of a previous study that used the same design but presented the distorted and undistorted words at 50 dB SL to both age groups. A total of 58 younger and 24 older adults were tested in two experiments. Results: The results showed that for older adults, memory performance for distorted words was decreased in all list positions at a presentation level of 50 dB SL compared with 40 dB SL and an undistorted 65 dB SPL baseline. This effect did not occur for younger listeners. However, when younger adults were tested at a very high presentation level, they showed the same memory decrease compared with the baseline as older adults showed for 50 dB SL. Conclusions: A high presentation level of distorted words can adversely affect memory even after intelligibility is equated for. Moreover, older listeners are affected at lower presentation levels. Hence, the choice of sound level, particularly for older listeners, is important and may affect their level of cognitive performance beyond its effects on intelligibility. Higher presentation levels may not always lead to better performance when the task involves recall of words previously heard. Participants listened to lists of five temporally distorted (jittered) word pairs where the amount of temporal distortion, in all cases, was adjusted to produce an intelligibility of 91%. Memory for a word pair in a list varied with sound intensity. In older listeners, memory performance decreased when the presentation level was increased from 40 to 50 dB SL. In younger listeners, memory performance decreased when the presentation level was increased from 50 dB SL to just below an uncomfortably high level. Thus high sound levels, when coupled with distortion, can decrease memory even when intelligibility is unaffected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207