Central auditory processing and cognitive abilities after mild traumatic brain injury in school-aged children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The current study aimed to explore (1) school-aged children’s auditory and cognitive abilities and (2) their perceptions (self-reported and parents) of listening behaviours and symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).Design Prospective cohort study.Study Sample Twenty-one children aged 8 to 12 participated in this study. Eleven children with mTBI were diagnosed in the emergency department, and 10 were matched controls. They were assessed twice, in the acute (≤14 days) and chronic (≥3 months) stages post-injury, using six central auditory behavioural tests, a cognitive screening battery, and questionnaires. ANOVA and correlation analysis were performed.Results Group differences were present in three auditory tests as children with mTBI obtained poorer scores than controls (Pitch Pattern Sequence Tests - PPST: p = 0.037; Gap In Noise test - GIN threshold: p = 0.046; Duration Pattern Test - DPT: p = 0.053), but not for perceived listening behaviours and cognitive abilities. Correlations were found only between perceived listening behaviours and reported mTBI symptoms for parents (p =0.014) and children (p =0.002).Conclusions Auditory abilities, mostly those related to temporal processing, were affected following mTBI, independently of cognitive abilities. Better identification of auditory processing difficulties following mTBI will improve treatment and resource allocation for children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".