Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aging Affects Neural Precision of Speech Encoding

Open access
Anderson, Samira, Parbery-Clark, Alexandra, White-Schwoch, Travis, Kraus, Nina·2012·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Older adults frequently report they can hear what is said but cannot understand the meaning, especially in noise. This difficulty may arise from the inability to process rapidly changing elements of speech. Aging is accompanied by a general slowing of neural processing and decreased neural inhibition, both of which likely interfere with temporal processing in auditory and other sensory domains. Age-related reductions in inhibitory neurotransmitter levels and delayed neural recovery can contribute to decreases in the temporal precision of the auditory system. Decreased precision may lead to neural timing delays, reductions in neural response magnitude, and a disadvantage in processing the rapid acoustic changes in speech. The auditory brainstem response (ABR), a scalp-recorded electrical potential, is known for its ability to capture precise neural synchrony within subcortical auditory nuclei; therefore, we hypothesized that a loss of temporal precision results in subcortical timing delays and decreases in response consistency and magnitude. To assess this hypothesis, we recorded ABRs to the speech syllable /da/ in normal hearing younger (18–30 years old) and older (60–67 years old) adult humans. Older adults had delayed ABRs, especially in response to the rapidly changing formant transition, and greater response variability. We also found that older adults had decreased phase locking and smaller response magnitudes than younger adults. Together, our results support the theory that older adults have a loss of temporal precision in the subcortical encoding of sound, which may account, at least in part, for their difficulties with speech perception.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.2176-12.2012

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Cited by

See all 377

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, S., Parbery-Clark, A., White-Schwoch, T., & Kraus, N.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-10-10
Volume
32
Issue
41
Pages
14156-14164
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2024442432
Cited by
377
References
67
FWCI
11.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aging Affects Neural Precision of Speech Encoding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.2176-12.2012
The paper
Anderson, S., Parbery-Clark, A., White-Schwoch, T., & Kraus, N. (2012). Aging Affects Neural Precision of Speech Encoding. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2176-12.2012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.