Observational studyCoDAS2026
Influence of cognitive functions on central auditory processing tests in university students.
Observational study in CoDAS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the influences of cognitive functions on central auditory processing (CAP) tests in university students, through a brief neuropsychological assessment.
methodsObservational, analytical, cross-sectional study with 95 undergraduate and postgraduate students aged 18 to 39 years. They underwent otoscopy, basic audiological evaluation, behavioral assessment of auditory processing using the Speech-in-Noise, Pitch Pattern Sequence (PPS), Duration Pattern Sequence (DPS), Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT), Masking Level Difference (MLD), Dichotic Digits Test (DDT), and neuropsychological assessment using the Brief Neuropsychological Assessment Instrument (NEUPSILIN). The chi-square test analyzed the association of variables, followed by a logistic regression model to estimate the odds ratio between variables with statistical significance.
resultsThere were statistically significant associations between the RGDT result, attention, and verbal fluency, and between the DDT and working memory. Moreover, abnormal verbal fluency increases the odds of abnormal RGDT results by 4.7 times, and abnormal working memory and problem-solving increase the odds of abnormal DDT results by 8 times and 6.6 times, respectively.
conclusionWorking memory, attention, cognitive planning, processing speed, and cognitive flexibility particularly influenced the temporal resolution and dichotic listening tests. Further research may expand this reflection on the interpretative analysis of CAPD tests and diagnosis.
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.