Auditory temporal processing deficits in older listeners: From a review to a future view of Presbycusis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous behavioural studies support the hypothesis that there are age-related auditory temporal processing de cits. The effects of age on some psychoacoustic and speech tasks implicate a loss of synchrony or periodicity coding, while other results point to losses in gap and duration coding, or poor use of envelope cues. Performance on psychoacoustic tests of auditory temporal processing has been related to performance on speech tests. This paper reviews the evidence for age-related differences in performance to address two questions: Does aging affect auditory temporal processing at one or more levels, and how are these age-related differences related to the processing of speech? Future directions for research are proposed to address the extent to which different types of auditory temporal processing de cits are inter-related. Future directions for practice are proposed to address the need to develop a new approach to the assessment and rehabilitation of sub-types of presbycusis. Differentiating neural presbycusis from other sub-types may clarify the bases of individual differences in temporal processing and their consequences to speech understanding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".