Association Between the Right Ear Advantage in Dichotic Listening and Interaural Differences in Sensory Processing at Lower Levels of the Auditory System in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current evidence suggests that an enhanced right ear advantage (REA) in dichotic listening (DL) among older adults may originate from age-related structural changes in the corpus callosum and age-related decline in cognitive processes. Less is known about the effect of information processing at lower portions of the auditory system on DL performance. The present study investigates whether interaural differences (ID) in sensory processing at lower levels of the auditory system are associated with the magnitude of the REA in DL among older adults. DESIGN: Sixty-eight older adults participated in the study. Participants were assessed with a DL test using nonforced (NF) and forced attention paradigms. Hearing sensitivity, transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE), contralateral suppression of TEOAE, a proxy measure of medial olivocochlear activation, and auditory brainstem response to speech stimuli (speech-ABR) were tested in both ears separately. The ID in sensory processing at lower levels of the auditory system was derived by calculating the difference between the RE and LE for each auditory measure. Bivariate and multivariate regression models were performed. One multivariate model for each DL paradigm (NF and forced attention) was independently constructed. Measures of cognitive speed of processing and cognitive flexibility were accounted for in the regression models. RESULTS: For both multivariate regression models, ID in pure-tone thresholds and ID in MOC suppression of TEOAE were significantly associated with the magnitude of the REA for DL among older adults. Cognitive measures of speed of processing and cognitive flexibility also contributed to the magnitude of the REA. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that ID in sensory processing at lower levels of the auditory system account, at least in part, for the increased magnitude of the REA in DL among 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".