The Role of Age-Related Declines in Subcortical Auditory Processing in Speech Perception in Noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults, even those without hearing impairment, often experience increased difficulties understanding speech in the presence of background noise. This study examined the role of age-related declines in subcortical auditory processing in the perception of speech in different types of background noise. Participants included normal-hearing young (19 - 29 years) and older (60 - 72 years) adults. Normal hearing was defined as pure-tone thresholds of 25 dB HL or better at octave frequencies from 0.25 to 4 kHz in both ears and at 6 kHz in at least one ear. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) to sentences were measured in steady-state (SS) and 10-Hz amplitude-modulated (AM) speech-shaped noise, as well as two-talker babble. In addition, click-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and envelope following responses (EFRs) in response to the vowel /ɑ/ in quiet, SS, and AM noise were measured. Of primary interest was the relationship between the SRTs and EFRs. SRTs were significantly higher (i.e., worse) by about 1.5 dB for older adults in two-talker babble but not in AM and SS noise. In addition, the EFRs of the older adults were less robust compared to the younger participants in quiet, AM, and SS noise. Both young and older adults showed a "neural masking release," indicated by a more robust EFR at the trough compared to the peak of the AM masker. The amount of neural masking release did not differ between the two age groups. Variability in SRTs was best accounted for by audiometric thresholds (pure-tone average across 0.5-4 kHz) and not by the EFR in quiet or noise. Aging is thus associated with a degradation of the EFR, both in quiet and noise. However, these declines in subcortical neural speech encoding are not necessarily associated with impaired perception of speech in noise, as measured by the SRT, in normal-hearing older adults.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".