ArticleScientific reports2023
A data-driven approach to identify a rapid screener for auditory processing disorder testing referrals in adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinct Roles of Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Speech-in-Noise Perception.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Degraded neural coding of temporal fine structure with age predicts effortful listening in multi-talker environments.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- The slowest timescales of neural synchronization reveal the strongest influence of auditory distraction.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Rapid and objective assessment of auditory temporal processing using dynamic amplitude-modulated stimuli.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Rapid and objective assessment of auditory temporal processing using dynamic amplitude-modulated stimuli.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Hearing thresholds form the gold standard assessment in Audiology clinics. However, ~ 10% of adult patients seeking audiological care for self-perceived hearing deficits have thresholds that are normal. Currently, a diagnostic assessment for auditory processing disorder (APD) remains one of the few viable avenues of further care for this patient population, yet there are no standard guidelines for referrals. Here, we identified tests within the APD testing battery that could provide a rapid screener to inform APD referrals in adults. We first analyzed records from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Audiology database to identify adult patients with self-perceived hearing difficulties despite normal audiometric thresholds. We then looked at the patients who were referred for APD testing. We examined test performances, correlational relationships, and classification accuracies. Patients experienced most difficulties within the dichotic domain of testing. Additionally, accuracies calculated from sensitivities and specificities revealed the words-in-noise (WIN), the Random Dichotic Digits Task (RDDT) and Quick Speech in Noise (QuickSIN) tests had the highest classification accuracies. The addition of these tests have the greatest promise as a quick screener during routine audiological assessments to help identify adult patients who may be referred for APD assessment and resulting treatment plans.
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.