ArticleEar and hearing
Binaural Frequency Modulation Detection in School-Age Children, Young Adults, and Older Adults: Effects of Interaural Modulator Phase.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors that influence outcomes and device use for pediatric cochlear implant recipients with unilateral hearing loss.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Minimum Audible Angle and the Acoustic Change Complex Elicited by Azimuthal Shifts in Low-Frequency Sounds: Effects of Age.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to measure low-rate binaural frequency modulation (FM) detection across the lifespan as a gauge of temporal fine structure processing. Children and older adults were expected to perform more poorly than young adults but for different reasons.
designDetection of 2-Hz FM carried by a 500-Hz pure tone was measured for modulators that were either in-phase or out-of-phase across ears. Thresholds were measured in quiet and in noise. Participants were school-age children (n = 44), young adults (n = 11), and older adults (n = 17) with normal or near-normal hearing.
resultsThresholds were lower for out-of-phase than in-phase modulators among all listening groups. Detection thresholds improved with child age, with larger effects of age for dichotic than diotic FM. Introduction of masking noise tended to elevate thresholds; this effect was larger for the dichotic condition than the diotic condition, and larger for older adults than young adults. In noise, young adults received the greatest dichotic benefit, followed by older adults, then young children. The relative effects of noise on dichotic benefit did not differ for young adults compared to young children and older adults; however, young children saw greater reduction in benefit due to noise than older adults.
conclusionThe difference in dichotic benefit between children and young adults is consistent with maturation of central auditory processing. Differences in the effect of noise on dichotic benefit in young children and older adults support the idea that different factors or combinations of factors limit performance in these two groups. Although dichotic FM detection appears to be more sensitive to the effects of development and aging than diotic FM detection, the positive correlation between diotic and dichotic FM detection thresholds for all listeners suggests contribution of one or more factors common to both conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.