Literature DB >> 29716303

Differences in common psychoacoustical tasks by sex, menstrual cycle, and race.

Dennis McFadden1, Edward G Pasanen1, Mindy M Maloney1, Erin M Leshikar2, Michelle H Pho2.   

Abstract

The psychoacoustical literature contains multiple reports about small differences in performance depending upon the sex and phase of the menstrual cycle of the subjects. In an attempt to verify these past reports, a large-scale study was implemented. After extensive training, the performance of about 75 listeners was measured on seven common psychoacoustical tasks. For most tasks, the signal was a 3.0-kHz tone. The initial data analyses failed to confirm some past outcomes. Additional analyses, incorporating the limited information available about the racial background of the listeners, did confirm some of the past reports, with the direction and magnitude of the differences often diverging for the White and Non-White listeners. Sex differences and race differences interacted for six of the seven tasks studied. These interactions suggest that racial background needs to be considered when making generalizations about human auditory performance, and when considering failures of reproducibility across studies. Menstrual differences were small, but generally larger for Whites than Non-Whites. Hormonal effects may be responsible for the sex and cycle differences that do exist, and differences in intra-cochlear melanocytes may account for the race differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29716303      PMCID: PMC5915329          DOI: 10.1121/1.5030998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  64 in total

1.  Individual differences in auditory abilities.

Authors:  Gary R Kidd; Charles S Watson; Brian Gygi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) in Caucasian and Chinese young adults.

Authors:  Navid Shahnaz
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Auditory filter asymmetry at 2000 Hz in 80 normal-hearing ears.

Authors:  B A Wright
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Prevalence and characteristics of tinnitus among US adults.

Authors:  Josef Shargorodsky; Gary C Curhan; Wildon R Farwell
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Relations between auditory functions in normal hearing.

Authors:  J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Noise-induced hearing loss: the effect of melanin in the stria vascularis.

Authors:  S Bartels; S Ito; D R Trune; A L Nuttall
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Relationships between otoacoustic emissions and a proxy measure of cochlear length derived from the auditory brainstem response.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Adrian Garcia-Sierra; Michelle D Hsieh; Mindy M Maloney; Craig A Champlin; Edward G Pasanen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004.

Authors:  Yuri Agrawal; Elizabeth A Platz; John K Niparko
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-28

9.  Effect of prenatal androgens on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in male and female sheep (Ovis aries).

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Edward G Pasanen; Michelle D Valero; Eila K Roberts; Theresa M Lee
Journal:  Horm Behav       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 3.587

10.  Incidence of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in children and infants.

Authors:  E A Strickland; E M Burns; A Tubis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  4 in total

1.  Are there sex effects for speech intelligibility in American English? Examining the influence of talker, listener, and methodology.

Authors:  Sarah E Yoho; Stephanie A Borrie; Tyson S Barrett; Dane B Whittaker
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Examining replicability of an otoacoustic measure of cochlear function during selective attention.

Authors:  Jordan A Beim; Andrew J Oxenham; Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Craig A Champlin; Michelle H Pho; Edward G Pasanen; Mindy M Maloney; Erin M Leshikar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Postnatal Effects of Sex Hormones on Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions: A Study of Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria.

Authors:  Sarah M Burke; Jason O van Heesewijk; Willeke M Menks; Daniel T Klink; Baudewijntje P C Kreukels; Peggy T Cohen-Kettenis; Julie Bakker
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2020-02-13
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.