CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Prenatal Substance Exposure EffectsHearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Central auditory processing in school-age children prenatally exposed to cigarette smoke

Mccartney, Joel S., Fried, Peter A., Watkinson, Barbara·1994·Neurotoxicology and Teratology
DOI 10.1016/0892-0362(94)90048-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One hundred and ten, 6- to 11-year-old children from a low-risk, predominantly middle class sample who are participants in an ongoing longitudinal drug study were assessed using a central auditory processing task (SCAN) that made perceptual rather than linguistic demands. Maternal smoking during pregnancy was linearly associated with poorer performance on the overall SCAN and, particularly, the Competing Words subtest which may be an indication of the child's auditory maturation. The significant associations remained after adjusting for other drug use, demographic variables, and passive smoke exposure both during pregnancy and postnatally. The child's recent second-hand smoke exposure was evaluated by a parental questionnaire and by urine cotinine assay. Neither prenatal nor postnatal passive smoke exposure was statistically significantly associated with the SCAN results. However, among the children of nonsmokers, passive smoke exposure resulted in average scores similar to those of the prenatal light smoking group. The findings are discussed in relation to earlier observations that have reported an association between smoking during pregnancy and altered auditory functioning in the offspring.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0892-0362(94)90048-5

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sameroff, 1975, Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking causality, Vol. 4, 187

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mccartney, J. S., Fried, P. A., & Watkinson, B.
Affiliations
Carleton University (CA)
Corresponding author
Fried, Peter A.
ORCID
Fried, Peter A.
Venue
Neurotoxicology and Teratology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-05
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
269-276
ISSN
0892-0362 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0892-0362(94)90048-5
OpenAlex
W2033153189
Cited by
117
References
45
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Neurotoxicology and Teratology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Keywords
central auditory processing, prenatal cigarette smoke exposure, smoking during pregnancy, elementary school students, passive smoking, urinary cotinine, auditory maturation, scan-based testing
MeSH terms
Auditory Perception, Child, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Language Tests, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Smoking, Tobacco Smoke Pollution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review