MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212858349 · doi:10.1177/09567976211042008

Safe and Sound: The Effects of Experimentally Priming the Sense of Attachment Security on Pure-Tone Audiometric Thresholds Among Young and Older Adults

2022· article· en· W4212858349 on OpenAlexaff
Shir Nagar, Mario Mikulincer, Gal Nitsan, Boaz M. Ben‐David

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPriming (agriculture)AudiologyPerceptionTone (literature)Developmental psychologySpeech perceptionCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attachment security has consistently been found to correlate with relaxed exploration, openness, and mindful attention to incoming information. The present studies explored whether contextually infusing a sense of attachment security (security priming) can improve hearing in young and older adults. In Study 1, participants (29 young, 30 older) performed a standardized pure-tone audiometric-thresholds test twice. In the security-priming condition, a picture of a participant's security-enhancing figure was presented throughout the task. In the control condition, a picture of an unknown person (matched in sex, age, and facial expression) was used as a neutral prime. Study 2 (14 young, 14 older) was almost identical, except that it was preregistered and the neutral prime was a circle. In both studies, participants performed better (had lower hearing thresholds) in the security-priming condition. The current study is the first to show that attachment security improves sensory perception, and these results have meaningful implications for theory and clinical hearing tests.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207