Is There Any Effect of the Chronobiological Profile on Auditory Skills?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the peripheral and central auditory performance of circadian chronotypes at different times of the day. Materials and Methods:The participants, whose chronotypes were determined using the morningness eveningness questionnaire, underwent acoustic immittance measurements, Otoacoustic Emission test, Pure Tone Audiometry test, Frequency Pattern test, Duration Pattern test (DPT), Turkish speech in noise (TSiNT) and Auditory Verbal Learning test (AVLT) both in the morning and evening.A total of 63 participants with normal hearing and montreal cognitive assessment score 21 were included.Results: Morning types scored significantly higher on the A7 subtest of the AVLT during the morning session (p<0.05).Evening types achieved significantly higher scores on the TSiNT during the evening session (p<0.05).In the morning tests, morning types showed significantly better performance on the left ear DPT compared to intermediate types (p<0.05).Similarly, in the evening tests, morning types outperformed intermediate types on the TSiNT (p<0.05). Conclusion:The results indicated that the central auditory performance of individuals with the same chronotype varies at different times of the day, influenced by their circadian profile.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it