Back

Brief Report: Test-Retest Reliability of Explicit Auditory Processing Measures

Saito, K.; Sun, H.; Tierney, A. T.

2020-06-15 neuroscience
10.1101/2020.06.12.149484 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In this brief report, we examined the test-retest reliability of our in-house explicit auditory processing measures in the context of 30 L1 and L2 English users. The participants took the same test battery which consisted of a total of four discrimination tasks (encoding acoustic details of formant, pitch, duration, and rise time) and two reproduction tasks (repeating novel melodic and rhythmic patterns) at Days 1 and 2. According to the results, the participants initial and second test scores demonstrated medium-to-large associations (r = .562-.907). The results suggest that the tests can tap into various dimensions of individuals auditory acuity and integration abilities.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Behavior Research Methods
○ 30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Frontiers in Psychology
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Frontiers in Neuroscience
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Hearing Research
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Trends in Hearing
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
● 13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
9
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
● 35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
10
Ear & Hearing
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
○ 189 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.2%
12
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
13
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
eneuro
● 439 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
15
Cognition
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
16
International Journal of Psychophysiology
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
17
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
18
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
19
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
20
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
Neuropsychologia
○ 85 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Developmental Science
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
23
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
24
npj Science of Learning
○ 19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
25
Behavioural Processes
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
26
Neuroscience Research
○ 16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
27
Brain Sciences
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.