The Medial Olivocochlear Reflex Is Unlikely to Play a Role in Listening Difficulties in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) has been implicated in several auditory processes. The putative role of the MOCR in improving speech perception in noise is particularly relevant for children who complain of listening difficulties (LiD). The hypothesis that the MOCR may be impaired in individuals with LiD or auditory processing disorder has led to several investigations but without consensus. In two related studies, we compared the MOCR functioning of children with LiD and typically developing (TD) children in the same age range (7–17 years). In Study 1, we investigated ipsilateral, contralateral, and bilateral MOCR using forward-masked click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs; n = 17 TD, 17 LiD). In Study 2, we employed three OAE types: CEOAEs ( n = 16 TD, 21 LiD), stimulus frequency OAEs ( n = 21 TD, 30 LiD), and distortion product OAEs ( n = 17 TD, 22 LiD) in a contralateral noise paradigm. Results from both studies suggest that the MOCR functioning is not significantly different between the two groups. Some likely reasons for differences in findings among published studies could stem from the lack of strict data quality measures (e.g., high signal-to-noise ratio, control for the middle ear muscle reflex) that were enforced in the present study. The inherent variability of the MOCR, the subpar reliability of current MOCR methods, and the heterogeneity in auditory processing deficits that underlie auditory processing disorder make detecting clinically relevant differences in MOCR function impractical using current methods.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".