Association between auditory temporal and visual processing in reading skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose: to verify whether students screened with altered auditory temporal processing are more likely to present altered visual processing. Methods: the sample consisted of 68 children, aged from 9 to 12 years, 53% males, from the 5th and 6th grades of a public school. All children with alterations in the audiological or ophthalmological evaluation were excluded. The Duration Pattern Test (screening for auditory temporal skill), the Reading Perceptual Scale (visual stress symptom questionnaire and colored overlays selection) and the Rate of Reading Test (number of words correctly read per minute) were used. Appropriate statistical tests were applied adopting the significance level lower than 0.05. Results: participants screened with abnormal auditory processing had higher visual stress symptoms and lower reading rate, with a significant and moderate effect (p< 0.05; d< 0.71), when compared to their peers with normal auditory processing. Among the children with altered Duration Pattern Test, 58% improved the reading rate with the use of colored overlays, whereas 29% did so in the control group (Odds Ratio = 3.4, p = 0.017). Conclusion: children screened with altered auditory temporal processing presented a three times higher possibility of association with visual processing alterations, due to shared magnocellular system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".