ArticleCoDAS2026
Behavioral tests of auditory processing: a study on reference values for normal-hearing adults.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze and compare outcomes of clinical tests assessing auditory processing (AP) in adults with normal hearing across age groups and to propose reference values.
methodsA total of 116 adults aged 18 to 59 years, all with normal hearing, no auditory complaints, and native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese, were evaluated. The following verbal and nonverbal tests were administered: Masking Level Difference (MLD), Gaps-In-Noise (GIN), Pitch Pattern Sequence (PPS), Duration Pattern Sequence (DPS), and Dichotic Digits Test (DDT).
resultsThe GIN, PPS, and DDT showed significant differences beginning at 40 years of age. For the DPS, significant differences were observed between individuals aged 18-29 years and those aged 50-59 years. In the DDT, significant differences were found in the right ear beginning at 50 years and in the left ear beginning at 40 years. The MLD was the only test that did not show age-related differences.
conclusionA decline in auditory processing test performance was observed with increasing age, even before senescence. The age at which significant changes occurred varied across tests, highlighting the need to establish age-specific reference values. The MLD was the only test that remained stable throughout adulthood. The proposed reference values are as follows: MLD, 8-14 dB (18-59 years); GIN, ≤ 6 ms (18-39 years) and ≤ 8 ms (40-59 years); PPS, ≥ 76.6% (18-39 years) and ≥ 63.0% (40-59 years); DPS, ≥ 90.3% (18-29 years), ≥ 80.0% (30-49 years), and ≥ 70.0% (50-59 years); DDT-RE, ≥ 98.5% (18-49 years) and ≥ 93.2% (50-59 years); DDT-LE, ≥ 97.5% (18-39 years) and ≥ 95.0% (40-59 years).
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.