MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286470547 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.915211

No effect of occupational noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech perception in noise

2022· article· en· W4286470547 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Pinsonnault-Skvarenina, Karina Moïn-Darbari, Wulan Zhao, Meibian Zhang, Wei Qiu, Adrián Fuente

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and TechnologyUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAudiologyAuditory brainstem responseStimulus (psychology)Hearing lossHearing aidNoise exposureNoise (video)BrainstemPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether auditory brainstem response (ABR) and speech perception in noise (SPiN) were associated with occupational noise exposure in normal hearing young factory workers. Forty young adults occupationally exposed to noise and 40 non-exposed young adults (control group) from Zhejiang province in China were selected. All participants presented with normal hearing thresholds and distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Participants were evaluated with the Mandarin Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB) test and ABR. The latter was obtained for click stimulus at 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 dBnHL. Peak-to-trough amplitudes and latencies for waves I and V were obtained. The ABR wave I amplitude, the wave I/V amplitude ratio, the slope of the wave I amplitude growth as a function of stimulus intensity (AMP-I Slope ), and the wave V latency shift with ipsilateral noise (LAT-V Slope ) were used as ABR outcomes. Finally, equivalent continuous average sound pressure level normalized to 8 h (L Aeq.8h ) and cumulative noise exposure (CNE) were obtained for noise-exposed participants. No significant differences between groups were found for any ABR outcomes. Noise-exposed participants exhibited worse BKB scores than control group participants. A multivariate regression model showed that 23.3% of the variance in BKB scores was explained by group category (exposed vs. non-exposed) and hearing thresholds. However, since none of the ABR outcomes exploring cochlear synaptopathy were associated with noise exposure, we cannot conclude that cochlear synaptopathy was the contributing factor for the differences between groups for BKB scores. Factors that go beyond sensory processing may explain such results, especially given socio-economic differences between the noise-exposed and control groups. We conclude that in this sample of participants, occupational noise exposure was not associated with signs of cochlear synaptopathy as measured by ABR and BKB.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207