Extended high-frequency pure tone hearing thresholds and core executive functions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Mean and standard deviation for pure tone hearing thresholds in right ear for all subjects at all frequencies. N = 43.

Figure 2. Mean and standard deviation for pure tone hearing thresholds in left ear for all subjects at all frequencies. N = 43.

Table 1. Raw mean WMC (average accuracy scores for the three N-back conditions divided by response times for the same conditions), inhibitory control (the proportion correctly withheld responses divided by the average response times for non-target trials), shifting ability (the combined scores for shift-trials subtracted from the combined scores for no-shift trials, see text for more details), and information updating (proportion correctly recalled content words) performance along with standard deviations and minima and maxima.

	Group predetermined test order (N = 29)				Group counterbalanced test order (N = 14)
	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	DF	t	p
WMC	0.17	0.03	0.12	0.23	0.17	0.03	0.12	0.21	41	0.289	0.774
Inhibitory control	0.22	0.03	0.14	0.27	0.22	0.05	0.11	0.27	41	−0.028	0.977
Shifting ability	27.65	11.67	16.08	65.11	24.88	7.53	12.20	37.04	41	0.807	0.424
Information updating	0.87	0.11	0.54	1.00	0.86	0.10	0.71	1.00	41	0.490	0.627

Results are shown for the group with a predetermined test order and for the group with counterbalanced test order. A higher scores indicates better performance. DF: degrees of freedom.

Table 2. Performance for all subjects pooled together. Otherwise as in Table 1.

	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
WMC	0.17	0.03	0.12	0.23
Inhibitory control	0.22	0.04	0.11	0.27
Shifting ability	26.75	10.49	13.00	65.11
Information updating	0.87	0.10	0.54	1.00

Table 3. Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) between BEHFPTA, WEHFPTA, and HFPTA_asymmetry and WMC, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and global executive function. Benjamini and Hochberg’s (1995) false discovery rate was used to calculate a corrected alpha level to adjust for the multiple correlations calculated (N = 43).

Variable	BEHFPTA	WEHFPTA	HFPTAasymmetry	Working memory	Inhibitory control	Cognitive flexibility
WEHFPTA	0.854^a
HFPTAasymmetry	−0.089	0.443^a
Working memory	0.147	0.002	−0.250
Inhibitory control	0.020	−0.177	−0.371^b	0.383^b
Cognitive flexibility	−0.210	−0.287	−0.188	−0.079	−0.053
Global executive function	−0.064	−0.279	−0.422^a	0.600^a	0.618^a	0.620^a

^aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

^bCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Figure 3. Scatter plot showing the relationship between HFPTA_asymmetry (dB) and inhibitory control (filled circles) and global executive function (open triangles) and shifting ability for individual subjects. The lines represent the linear interpolation for inhibitory control (drawn line) and global executive function (dashed line). A higher score indicates better performance. N = 43.

Benjamini, T., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. “Controling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 57: 289–300.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar