MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529210211 · doi:10.1515/revneuro-2016-0043

Effect of acute stress on auditory processing: a systematic review of human studies

2016· review· en· W2529210211 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Jafari, Bryan Kolb, Majid H. Mohajerani

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in the Neurosciences · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditory pathwaysStress (linguistics)PsychologyNeuroscienceMedicineLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress is an integral part of modern life. Although there is a large body of literature regarding the harmful effects of chronic stress on different aspects of human life, acute stress is the most common form of stress, resulting from the demands and pressures of the recent past and the anticipated demands and pressures of the near future. In spite of its pervasive nature, less attention has been paid to the impact of acute stress on sensory processing than to the consequences of chronic stress, particularly concerning auditory processing. In this systematic review, the impact of experimental acute stress on the auditory processing of healthy adults was investigated. The results revealed the adverse effects of acute physical and psychological stresses on auditory processing. According to the open field of research on stress and the auditory system and the high possibility of experiencing different types of acute stresses in various life environments, including testing places, it seems that more investigations are needed to identify and manage different types of acute stresses in both clinical and research situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in the NeurosciencesSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207