This chapter is available only in PDF format (and not in HTML format) because the tables figures and photos included in this chapter cannot be displayed satisfactorily in the HTML format Also the page numbers in the PDF format of this chapter do not correspond to the page numbers in the original report because of formatting changes during conversion of the original report (Word file) into PDF format

30

Results

Summary Data Means and standard deviations were computed for all 63 primary endpoints sorted by level within each risk status category (ie high or low neonatal risk high or low IQ and LD present or absent These data are summarized by test type in Tables 8 through 12

Table 8 Means (SDs) for Auditory Processing Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 N=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

PPST Total Correct 639(103) 638(111) 553(136) 592(109) 417(190) 596(111) Correct+Reversed 560(150) 550(154) 635(112) 667(49) 537(171) 667(51)

PPST Gestures-Verbal Correct 20(40) 23(39) 26(48) 09(46) 29(64) 22(44) Correct+Reversed 24(49) 23(52) 21(40) 14(28) 41(55) 15(32)

Auditory CPT Errors Attention 77(89) 81(95) 80(92) 53(53) 109(113) 68(81) Impulsivity 61(100) 51(59) 60(98) 48(50) 83(100) 51(87)

DD-DP Passes L+R 349(69) 348(59) 348(69) 360(54) 289(90) 364(48)

Table 9 Means (SDs) for Auditory Electrophysiology Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Signal-to-noise ratios in dB DP OAE 70dB

1000 Hz 58(86) 52(94) 58(87) 49(91) 62(94) 55(86) 2000 Hz 99(87) 87(82) 96(87) 93(76) 94(86) 96(85) 3000 Hz 76(87) 68(82) 75(87) 73(82) 61(85) 78(86) 4000 Hz 82100) 75(81) 80(100) 86(70) 62(106) 86(91) 6000 Hz 129(96) 117(110) 125(103) 130(84) 95(104) 134(97)

Click Evoked OAE 1000 Hz 94(74) 73(69) 89(73) 85(72) 87(76) 89(72) 1500 Hz 138(76) 122(76) 132(79) 140(62) 130(81) 135(75) 2000 Hz 135(71) 129(70) 136(71) 123(66) 127(80) 136(68) 3000 Hz 125(71) 125(70) 126(71) 118(72) 114(71) 128(70) 4000 Hz 127(69) 126(75) 130(71) 117(69) 107(64) 133(71)

Spontaneous Number OAEs 08(19) 07(13) 08(19) 04(11) 08(17) 08(18) BAER Latency Shifts 80dB) in msec

Wave I 39-19 004(009) 004(013) 004(009) 004(011) 003(009) 005(010) 69-39 005(012) 007(010) 006(012) 006(008) 009(010) 005(012)

Wave III 39-19 011(021) 011(011) 011(020) 012(011) 007(026) 012(016) 69-39 011(018) 011(012) 011(018) 012(011) 011(012) 011(018)

Wave V 39-19 018(012) 020(015) 019(014) 019(010) 018(013) 019(013) 69-39 023(013) 020(014) 022(013) 022(012) 024(013) 021(013)

Latency shifts were selected as the primary BAER endpoint Many differences may occur when using absolute latencies (eg females have shorter latencies than males)

31

Table 10 Means (SDs) for Cognitive Evoked Potential and Visual Attention

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Component Latency (Msec) Cz 4586(705) 4465(656 4538(685) 4580(735) 4511(552) 4559(720) Pz 4593(773) 4466(620) 4558(745) 4529(696) 4536(576) 4562(769)

Amplitude (microV) Cz 164(69) 164(74) 167(71) 153(61) 159(78) 165(68) Pz 195(80) 210(33) 201(86) 190(73) 179(100) 204(79)

Correct Responses Rare Targets 976(66) 985(33) 978(61) 985(30) 968(57) 981(59) Rare Targets 488(33) 492(16) 489(31) 492(15) 484(29) 491(30)

CPT Errors Omission 14(38) 07(16) 11(31) 17(43) 16(28) 11(34) Commission 56(113) 35(42) 49(83) 56(155) 62(106) 48(97)

CPT Response RT (Msec) Correct IDs 4721(786) 4689(789) 4740(780) 4524(782) 4766(697) 4697(805) Commission 3281(1187) 3282(1040) 3319(1154) 2985(1086) 3450(1136) 3206(1138)

These data show that mean differences between risk statuses within each risk category were small and that the SDs was generally large The largest differences occurred within the IQ risk category and mainly on auditory processing tasks (Table 8) CANTAB tasks (Table 11) monitoring and vigilance and tremor tasks (Table 12) From these results we surmised that covariates were probably blurring the group differences within each risk category and that the behavioral tasks were probably more likely to detect difference in performance between groups than were the electrophysiological tasks

Regression and ROC Analyses Separate multiple regression analyses combined with ROC plots were run for each of the 63 endpoints for each risk category As noted in the analysis plan the regression model for each endpoint included a predetermined set of covariates along with all interactions between this set and the status variable These included age at testing gender experience using a computer manipulandum experience with video games and hearing status Any non-significant interactions were dropped from the final model ROC curves were plotted for all endpoints with discriminating ability significantly better than chance or with covariates that significantly affected diagnostic accuracy In each analysis the area under the ROC curve was computed for each significant curve within each endpoint

For IQ risk a total of 42 out of 63 endpoints yielded at least one ROC curve with a peak significantly above (or below) the chance diagonal ie an arc significantly different than 05 The neonatal risk analysis yielded a total of 26 out of 63 endpoints with at least one significant curve and the LD risk analysis 18 out of 63 endpoints In each set of risk factor curves some analyses yielded very complicated outcomes For example sometimes the only significant curve resulted for one gender with computer experience under the age of 10 These endpoints were excluded from the final battery Further eliminations were made from the remaining endpoint curves that fell below an area under the curve of 070 ie 70 detection of true positives and true negatives This was an arbitrary decision since there are no benchmarks for ideal sensitivity and specificity We decided not to raise the cutoff point so high that the battery would be reduced

32

to a few endpoints that might not cover all domains of function that should be measured but also not to set the cutoff so low that endpoints affected by too much variability would be included

Table 11 Means (SDs) for Neuropsychological Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 N=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Intra- and Extra-dimensional Shift Trials 1329(481) 1330(559) 1309(480) 1439(599) 1398(577) 1311(478) Stages 78(12) 78(14) 79(12) 75(15) 77(15) 79(12) Errors 452(274) 444(326) 437(276) 515(342) 492(337) 439(272)

Delayed Match-to-Sample Long Delay 715(217) 699(250) 703(227) 750(228) 594(229) 744(214) Medium Delay 720(210) 770(220) 735(216) 724(206) 713(214) 740(213) Short Delay 764(188) 804(180) 778(184) 774(186) 719(213) 792(176) Simultaneous 961(99) 936(163) 949(127) 976(77) 915(176) 966(95) Correct Latency

All delays 41306(11815) 41265(13462) 40989(12755) 44622(8826) 40288(15004) 41677(1136) Simultaneous 40391(22436) 40811(14353) 40323(21986) 42264(11109) 41822(16033) 40129(21577)

Probability of error given error 02(02) 02(03) 02(02) 02(03) 03(02) 02(02) Fixed Interval Paradigm

Response Ratemin 1491(778) 1510(864) 1482(786) 1529(889) 1476(757) 1496(815) Pre-run Pause Time 10(11) 12(29) 10(11) 16(34) 08(08) 11(19) Inter-response Time 05(05) 05(10) 05(04) 06(12) 05(05) 05(07)

Self-Control Paradigm High Button Choices 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) High Button Latency (sec) 08(04) 09(06) 09(05) 07(02) 10(07) 08(03)

Paired Associate Learning Errors to Success 35(48) 41(63) 38(56) 29(31) 68(82) 28(36) Trials to Success 22(14) 24(18) 23(16) 21(09) 31(23) 20(11)

Table 12 Means (SDs) for Sensory Motor Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Scotopic Vision Thresholds R2 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(03) 08(02) Slope -009(006) -01(007) -009(006) -009(006) -009(007) -01(006)

Monitoring and Vigilance (10-15 minute segment)

Percent Alarms 125(153) 122(156) 126(148) 95(121) 206(249) 105(112) Percent Hazards 301(262) 347(306) 322(277) 250(226) 450(340) 2809(246) Percent Tracking Errors 164(162) 168(160) 172(161) 125(152) 240(189) 147(148) Number of Alarms 136(86) 132(74) 139(83) 117(72) 148(90) 132(80) Alarm Duration 20839(17004) 31420(83831) 24690(50027) 19334(14227) 38169(97256) 20162(16811) (Msecs)

Fine Motor Control Reaction Time (Msecs) 10982(2885) 11369(3587) 11053(3083) 11370(3227) 12860(3933) 10622(2628) Power

Mradssec 32(17) 32(009) 33(30) 30(13) 43(43) 29(20) Cmsec 01(009) 009)05) 01(01) 009(004) 01(01) 009(006)

Frequency 50 Power 07(03) 07)3) 07(03) 07(03) 07(03) 074(03) 90 Power 41(08) 41(09) 41(08) 41(08) 40(09) 42(08)

33

Results

Summary Data Means and standard deviations were computed for all 63 primary endpoints sorted by level within each risk status category (ie high or low neonatal risk high or low IQ and LD present or absent These data are summarized by test type in Tables 8 through 12

Table 8 Means (SDs) for Auditory Processing Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 N=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

PPST Total Correct 639(103) 638(111) 553(136) 592(109) 417(190) 596(111) Correct+Reversed 560(150) 550(154) 635(112) 667(49) 537(171) 667(51)

PPST Gestures-Verbal Correct 20(40) 23(39) 26(48) 09(46) 29(64) 22(44) Correct+Reversed 24(49) 23(52) 21(40) 14(28) 41(55) 15(32)

Auditory CPT Errors Attention 77(89) 81(95) 80(92) 53(53) 109(113) 68(81) Impulsivity 61(100) 51(59) 60(98) 48(50) 83(100) 51(87)

DD-DP Passes L+R 349(69) 348(59) 348(69) 360(54) 289(90) 364(48)

Table 9 Means (SDs) for Auditory Electrophysiology Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Signal-to-noise ratios in dB DP OAE 70dB

1000 Hz 58(86) 52(94) 58(87) 49(91) 62(94) 55(86) 2000 Hz 99(87) 87(82) 96(87) 93(76) 94(86) 96(85) 3000 Hz 76(87) 68(82) 75(87) 73(82) 61(85) 78(86) 4000 Hz 82100) 75(81) 80(100) 86(70) 62(106) 86(91) 6000 Hz 129(96) 117(110) 125(103) 130(84) 95(104) 134(97)

Click Evoked OAE 1000 Hz 94(74) 73(69) 89(73) 85(72) 87(76) 89(72) 1500 Hz 138(76) 122(76) 132(79) 140(62) 130(81) 135(75) 2000 Hz 135(71) 129(70) 136(71) 123(66) 127(80) 136(68) 3000 Hz 125(71) 125(70) 126(71) 118(72) 114(71) 128(70) 4000 Hz 127(69) 126(75) 130(71) 117(69) 107(64) 133(71)

Spontaneous Number OAEs 08(19) 07(13) 08(19) 04(11) 08(17) 08(18) BAER Latency Shifts 80dB) in msec

Wave I 39-19 004(009) 004(013) 004(009) 004(011) 003(009) 005(010) 69-39 005(012) 007(010) 006(012) 006(008) 009(010) 005(012)

Wave III 39-19 011(021) 011(011) 011(020) 012(011) 007(026) 012(016) 69-39 011(018) 011(012) 011(018) 012(011) 011(012) 011(018)

Wave V 39-19 018(012) 020(015) 019(014) 019(010) 018(013) 019(013) 69-39 023(013) 020(014) 022(013) 022(012) 024(013) 021(013)

Latency shifts were selected as the primary BAER endpoint Many differences may occur when using absolute latencies (eg females have shorter latencies than males)

31

Table 10 Means (SDs) for Cognitive Evoked Potential and Visual Attention

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Component Latency (Msec) Cz 4586(705) 4465(656 4538(685) 4580(735) 4511(552) 4559(720) Pz 4593(773) 4466(620) 4558(745) 4529(696) 4536(576) 4562(769)

Amplitude (microV) Cz 164(69) 164(74) 167(71) 153(61) 159(78) 165(68) Pz 195(80) 210(33) 201(86) 190(73) 179(100) 204(79)

Correct Responses Rare Targets 976(66) 985(33) 978(61) 985(30) 968(57) 981(59) Rare Targets 488(33) 492(16) 489(31) 492(15) 484(29) 491(30)

CPT Errors Omission 14(38) 07(16) 11(31) 17(43) 16(28) 11(34) Commission 56(113) 35(42) 49(83) 56(155) 62(106) 48(97)

CPT Response RT (Msec) Correct IDs 4721(786) 4689(789) 4740(780) 4524(782) 4766(697) 4697(805) Commission 3281(1187) 3282(1040) 3319(1154) 2985(1086) 3450(1136) 3206(1138)

These data show that mean differences between risk statuses within each risk category were small and that the SDs was generally large The largest differences occurred within the IQ risk category and mainly on auditory processing tasks (Table 8) CANTAB tasks (Table 11) monitoring and vigilance and tremor tasks (Table 12) From these results we surmised that covariates were probably blurring the group differences within each risk category and that the behavioral tasks were probably more likely to detect difference in performance between groups than were the electrophysiological tasks

Regression and ROC Analyses Separate multiple regression analyses combined with ROC plots were run for each of the 63 endpoints for each risk category As noted in the analysis plan the regression model for each endpoint included a predetermined set of covariates along with all interactions between this set and the status variable These included age at testing gender experience using a computer manipulandum experience with video games and hearing status Any non-significant interactions were dropped from the final model ROC curves were plotted for all endpoints with discriminating ability significantly better than chance or with covariates that significantly affected diagnostic accuracy In each analysis the area under the ROC curve was computed for each significant curve within each endpoint

For IQ risk a total of 42 out of 63 endpoints yielded at least one ROC curve with a peak significantly above (or below) the chance diagonal ie an arc significantly different than 05 The neonatal risk analysis yielded a total of 26 out of 63 endpoints with at least one significant curve and the LD risk analysis 18 out of 63 endpoints In each set of risk factor curves some analyses yielded very complicated outcomes For example sometimes the only significant curve resulted for one gender with computer experience under the age of 10 These endpoints were excluded from the final battery Further eliminations were made from the remaining endpoint curves that fell below an area under the curve of 070 ie 70 detection of true positives and true negatives This was an arbitrary decision since there are no benchmarks for ideal sensitivity and specificity We decided not to raise the cutoff point so high that the battery would be reduced

32

to a few endpoints that might not cover all domains of function that should be measured but also not to set the cutoff so low that endpoints affected by too much variability would be included

Table 11 Means (SDs) for Neuropsychological Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 N=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Intra- and Extra-dimensional Shift Trials 1329(481) 1330(559) 1309(480) 1439(599) 1398(577) 1311(478) Stages 78(12) 78(14) 79(12) 75(15) 77(15) 79(12) Errors 452(274) 444(326) 437(276) 515(342) 492(337) 439(272)

Delayed Match-to-Sample Long Delay 715(217) 699(250) 703(227) 750(228) 594(229) 744(214) Medium Delay 720(210) 770(220) 735(216) 724(206) 713(214) 740(213) Short Delay 764(188) 804(180) 778(184) 774(186) 719(213) 792(176) Simultaneous 961(99) 936(163) 949(127) 976(77) 915(176) 966(95) Correct Latency

All delays 41306(11815) 41265(13462) 40989(12755) 44622(8826) 40288(15004) 41677(1136) Simultaneous 40391(22436) 40811(14353) 40323(21986) 42264(11109) 41822(16033) 40129(21577)

Probability of error given error 02(02) 02(03) 02(02) 02(03) 03(02) 02(02) Fixed Interval Paradigm

Response Ratemin 1491(778) 1510(864) 1482(786) 1529(889) 1476(757) 1496(815) Pre-run Pause Time 10(11) 12(29) 10(11) 16(34) 08(08) 11(19) Inter-response Time 05(05) 05(10) 05(04) 06(12) 05(05) 05(07)

Self-Control Paradigm High Button Choices 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) High Button Latency (sec) 08(04) 09(06) 09(05) 07(02) 10(07) 08(03)

Paired Associate Learning Errors to Success 35(48) 41(63) 38(56) 29(31) 68(82) 28(36) Trials to Success 22(14) 24(18) 23(16) 21(09) 31(23) 20(11)

Table 12 Means (SDs) for Sensory Motor Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Scotopic Vision Thresholds R2 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(03) 08(02) Slope -009(006) -01(007) -009(006) -009(006) -009(007) -01(006)

Monitoring and Vigilance (10-15 minute segment)

Percent Alarms 125(153) 122(156) 126(148) 95(121) 206(249) 105(112) Percent Hazards 301(262) 347(306) 322(277) 250(226) 450(340) 2809(246) Percent Tracking Errors 164(162) 168(160) 172(161) 125(152) 240(189) 147(148) Number of Alarms 136(86) 132(74) 139(83) 117(72) 148(90) 132(80) Alarm Duration 20839(17004) 31420(83831) 24690(50027) 19334(14227) 38169(97256) 20162(16811) (Msecs)

Fine Motor Control Reaction Time (Msecs) 10982(2885) 11369(3587) 11053(3083) 11370(3227) 12860(3933) 10622(2628) Power

Mradssec 32(17) 32(009) 33(30) 30(13) 43(43) 29(20) Cmsec 01(009) 009)05) 01(01) 009(004) 01(01) 009(006)

Frequency 50 Power 07(03) 07)3) 07(03) 07(03) 07(03) 074(03) 90 Power 41(08) 41(09) 41(08) 41(08) 40(09) 42(08)

33

Table 10 Means (SDs) for Cognitive Evoked Potential and Visual Attention

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Component Latency (Msec) Cz 4586(705) 4465(656 4538(685) 4580(735) 4511(552) 4559(720) Pz 4593(773) 4466(620) 4558(745) 4529(696) 4536(576) 4562(769)

Amplitude (microV) Cz 164(69) 164(74) 167(71) 153(61) 159(78) 165(68) Pz 195(80) 210(33) 201(86) 190(73) 179(100) 204(79)

Correct Responses Rare Targets 976(66) 985(33) 978(61) 985(30) 968(57) 981(59) Rare Targets 488(33) 492(16) 489(31) 492(15) 484(29) 491(30)

CPT Errors Omission 14(38) 07(16) 11(31) 17(43) 16(28) 11(34) Commission 56(113) 35(42) 49(83) 56(155) 62(106) 48(97)

CPT Response RT (Msec) Correct IDs 4721(786) 4689(789) 4740(780) 4524(782) 4766(697) 4697(805) Commission 3281(1187) 3282(1040) 3319(1154) 2985(1086) 3450(1136) 3206(1138)

These data show that mean differences between risk statuses within each risk category were small and that the SDs was generally large The largest differences occurred within the IQ risk category and mainly on auditory processing tasks (Table 8) CANTAB tasks (Table 11) monitoring and vigilance and tremor tasks (Table 12) From these results we surmised that covariates were probably blurring the group differences within each risk category and that the behavioral tasks were probably more likely to detect difference in performance between groups than were the electrophysiological tasks

Regression and ROC Analyses Separate multiple regression analyses combined with ROC plots were run for each of the 63 endpoints for each risk category As noted in the analysis plan the regression model for each endpoint included a predetermined set of covariates along with all interactions between this set and the status variable These included age at testing gender experience using a computer manipulandum experience with video games and hearing status Any non-significant interactions were dropped from the final model ROC curves were plotted for all endpoints with discriminating ability significantly better than chance or with covariates that significantly affected diagnostic accuracy In each analysis the area under the ROC curve was computed for each significant curve within each endpoint

For IQ risk a total of 42 out of 63 endpoints yielded at least one ROC curve with a peak significantly above (or below) the chance diagonal ie an arc significantly different than 05 The neonatal risk analysis yielded a total of 26 out of 63 endpoints with at least one significant curve and the LD risk analysis 18 out of 63 endpoints In each set of risk factor curves some analyses yielded very complicated outcomes For example sometimes the only significant curve resulted for one gender with computer experience under the age of 10 These endpoints were excluded from the final battery Further eliminations were made from the remaining endpoint curves that fell below an area under the curve of 070 ie 70 detection of true positives and true negatives This was an arbitrary decision since there are no benchmarks for ideal sensitivity and specificity We decided not to raise the cutoff point so high that the battery would be reduced

32

to a few endpoints that might not cover all domains of function that should be measured but also not to set the cutoff so low that endpoints affected by too much variability would be included

Table 11 Means (SDs) for Neuropsychological Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 N=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Intra- and Extra-dimensional Shift Trials 1329(481) 1330(559) 1309(480) 1439(599) 1398(577) 1311(478) Stages 78(12) 78(14) 79(12) 75(15) 77(15) 79(12) Errors 452(274) 444(326) 437(276) 515(342) 492(337) 439(272)

Delayed Match-to-Sample Long Delay 715(217) 699(250) 703(227) 750(228) 594(229) 744(214) Medium Delay 720(210) 770(220) 735(216) 724(206) 713(214) 740(213) Short Delay 764(188) 804(180) 778(184) 774(186) 719(213) 792(176) Simultaneous 961(99) 936(163) 949(127) 976(77) 915(176) 966(95) Correct Latency

All delays 41306(11815) 41265(13462) 40989(12755) 44622(8826) 40288(15004) 41677(1136) Simultaneous 40391(22436) 40811(14353) 40323(21986) 42264(11109) 41822(16033) 40129(21577)

Probability of error given error 02(02) 02(03) 02(02) 02(03) 03(02) 02(02) Fixed Interval Paradigm

Response Ratemin 1491(778) 1510(864) 1482(786) 1529(889) 1476(757) 1496(815) Pre-run Pause Time 10(11) 12(29) 10(11) 16(34) 08(08) 11(19) Inter-response Time 05(05) 05(10) 05(04) 06(12) 05(05) 05(07)

Self-Control Paradigm High Button Choices 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) High Button Latency (sec) 08(04) 09(06) 09(05) 07(02) 10(07) 08(03)

Paired Associate Learning Errors to Success 35(48) 41(63) 38(56) 29(31) 68(82) 28(36) Trials to Success 22(14) 24(18) 23(16) 21(09) 31(23) 20(11)

Table 12 Means (SDs) for Sensory Motor Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Scotopic Vision Thresholds R2 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(03) 08(02) Slope -009(006) -01(007) -009(006) -009(006) -009(007) -01(006)

Monitoring and Vigilance (10-15 minute segment)

Percent Alarms 125(153) 122(156) 126(148) 95(121) 206(249) 105(112) Percent Hazards 301(262) 347(306) 322(277) 250(226) 450(340) 2809(246) Percent Tracking Errors 164(162) 168(160) 172(161) 125(152) 240(189) 147(148) Number of Alarms 136(86) 132(74) 139(83) 117(72) 148(90) 132(80) Alarm Duration 20839(17004) 31420(83831) 24690(50027) 19334(14227) 38169(97256) 20162(16811) (Msecs)

Fine Motor Control Reaction Time (Msecs) 10982(2885) 11369(3587) 11053(3083) 11370(3227) 12860(3933) 10622(2628) Power

Mradssec 32(17) 32(009) 33(30) 30(13) 43(43) 29(20) Cmsec 01(009) 009)05) 01(01) 009(004) 01(01) 009(006)

Frequency 50 Power 07(03) 07)3) 07(03) 07(03) 07(03) 074(03) 90 Power 41(08) 41(09) 41(08) 41(08) 40(09) 42(08)

33

to a few endpoints that might not cover all domains of function that should be measured but also not to set the cutoff so low that endpoints affected by too much variability would be included

Table 11 Means (SDs) for Neuropsychological Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 N=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Intra- and Extra-dimensional Shift Trials 1329(481) 1330(559) 1309(480) 1439(599) 1398(577) 1311(478) Stages 78(12) 78(14) 79(12) 75(15) 77(15) 79(12) Errors 452(274) 444(326) 437(276) 515(342) 492(337) 439(272)

Delayed Match-to-Sample Long Delay 715(217) 699(250) 703(227) 750(228) 594(229) 744(214) Medium Delay 720(210) 770(220) 735(216) 724(206) 713(214) 740(213) Short Delay 764(188) 804(180) 778(184) 774(186) 719(213) 792(176) Simultaneous 961(99) 936(163) 949(127) 976(77) 915(176) 966(95) Correct Latency

All delays 41306(11815) 41265(13462) 40989(12755) 44622(8826) 40288(15004) 41677(1136) Simultaneous 40391(22436) 40811(14353) 40323(21986) 42264(11109) 41822(16033) 40129(21577)

Probability of error given error 02(02) 02(03) 02(02) 02(03) 03(02) 02(02) Fixed Interval Paradigm

Response Ratemin 1491(778) 1510(864) 1482(786) 1529(889) 1476(757) 1496(815) Pre-run Pause Time 10(11) 12(29) 10(11) 16(34) 08(08) 11(19) Inter-response Time 05(05) 05(10) 05(04) 06(12) 05(05) 05(07)

Self-Control Paradigm High Button Choices 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) High Button Latency (sec) 08(04) 09(06) 09(05) 07(02) 10(07) 08(03)

Paired Associate Learning Errors to Success 35(48) 41(63) 38(56) 29(31) 68(82) 28(36) Trials to Success 22(14) 24(18) 23(16) 21(09) 31(23) 20(11)

Table 12 Means (SDs) for Sensory Motor Endpoints

Risk Factor Neonatal Risk LD IQ

Test or Task Low Risk High Risk No LD LD gt84 le84 n=227 n=76 n=244 n=49 n=232 n=61

Scotopic Vision Thresholds R2 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(02) 08(03) 08(02) Slope -009(006) -01(007) -009(006) -009(006) -009(007) -01(006)

Monitoring and Vigilance (10-15 minute segment)

Percent Alarms 125(153) 122(156) 126(148) 95(121) 206(249) 105(112) Percent Hazards 301(262) 347(306) 322(277) 250(226) 450(340) 2809(246) Percent Tracking Errors 164(162) 168(160) 172(161) 125(152) 240(189) 147(148) Number of Alarms 136(86) 132(74) 139(83) 117(72) 148(90) 132(80) Alarm Duration 20839(17004) 31420(83831) 24690(50027) 19334(14227) 38169(97256) 20162(16811) (Msecs)

Fine Motor Control Reaction Time (Msecs) 10982(2885) 11369(3587) 11053(3083) 11370(3227) 12860(3933) 10622(2628) Power

Mradssec 32(17) 32(009) 33(30) 30(13) 43(43) 29(20) Cmsec 01(009) 009)05) 01(01) 009(004) 01(01) 009(006)

Frequency 50 Power 07(03) 07)3) 07(03) 07(03) 07(03) 074(03) 90 Power 41(08) 41(09) 41(08) 41(08) 40(09) 42(08)

33

Applying these criteria to the data we found a total of 18 endpoints (show in Tables 13-15 sorted by the domain they were intended to measure) for predicting IQ grouping (Table 13) five for predicting LD (Table 14) and six for predicting neonatal status (Table 15)

Table 13 Tests with Sensitivity and Specificity for Predicting IQ

Area Regression Under the Coefficient

Domain and Test or Task Interactions ROC (SE) for t p Curve for Interaction Interaction

Visual and Auditory Information Processing DP OAE Amplitude 4000 Hz 70dB Normal Hearing 099 323(103) 31 0002 Auditory Processing Pitch Pattern Sequence Test

Age -40 (067) -59 00001 Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Normal Hearing gt084 188(91) 21 004 Trials 1+2 Correct Only Age gt086 -30(10) -29 0004

Trials 1+2 Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed None 072 -29(06) -53 00001 Perceptual Motor Monitoring and Vigilance

Average Tracking Error Age gt 073 29(12) 24 002

Video Game Experience with or gt079 -245(110) -22 003 without Computer Experience

Hazard 10-15 min Neither Video Game nor 090 406(178) 23 02 Computer Experience

Fine Motor Fine Motor Control Average RT Left Hand 087 2791(1160) 24 002 Power mradssec Females 075 17(08) 21 004 Cognitive

P300 Amplitude Cz High Neonatal Risk 071 -73(31) -23 002 Mean CPT RT 070 -503(258) -19 005 CANTAB Tasks

Self-Control Paradigm Total Choices High Reward Long Delay High Neonatal Risk with or 02(006) 23 02

without Video Game Experience Mdn Latency High Button Choices Children lt 13 Regardless of gt076 02(04) 39 00001

Computer Experience or Neonatal Risk

Paired Associate Learning Video Game Experience with or gt079 -86(22) -39 00001 without Computer Experience

Average Errors to Success Neither Video Game nor 093 131(42) 31 0002 Computer Experience

Average Trials to Success Video Experience 079 -21(06) -33 0001 Intra- and Extra-dimensional Shift Total Trials High Neonatal Risk and LD 089 -858(400) -21 003 Total Errors 088 -498(230) -22 003 Stages Completed 089 29(10) 28 0005 Delayed Match-to-Sample Correct Long Delay Video Game Experience 078 237(99) 24 002

34

Table 14 Tests with High Sensitivity and Specificity for Predicting Learning Disability

Area Under Regression Domain and Test or Task Interactions the ROC Coefficient t p

Curve for (SE) for Interaction Interaction

Visual and Auditory Information Processing DP OAE Amplitude 6000 Hz 70dB Normal Hearing gt072 225(105) 21 003 Fine Motor Fine Motor Control

Average RT High Neonatal 071 2408(1051) 23 002 Risk

Cognitive Mean CPT RT Non-preferred 070 622(274) 23 002

Hand CANTAB Tasks

Fixed Interval Paradigm Median Inter-response Time High Neonatal gt077 003(002) 207 004

Risk Median Pauses to the Final One High Neonatal 080 18(07) 27 0008

Risk

Table 15 Tests with High Sensitivity and Specificity for Predicting Neonatal Risk Status

Area Under Regression Domain and Test or Task Interactions the ROC Coefficient t p

Curve for (SE) for Interaction Interaction

Visual and Auditory Information Processing Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Normal Hearing 093 179(76) 24 002 Trials 1+2 Correct Only Normal Hearing 088 201(103) 19 005 Perceptual Motor Monitoring and Vigilance

Percent Alarms 10-15 minutes No Computer 088 -205(92) -22 003 Experience

Cognitive CANTAB Tasks

Self-Control Paradigm Mdn Latency High Button Choices No Computer 100 -26(03 -79 00001

Experience Fixed Interval Paradigm

Median Pauses to the Final One LD 076 18(07) 27 0007

Paired Associate Learning Average Errors to Success No Computer gt076 -30(11) 25 001

Experience with or without Video

Experience

35

Each table shows the specific test or task (Column 1) and the covariates that significantly influenced the AUC ie interacted with risk status (Column 2) The area or areas under the ROC curve accounted for by each level of each interaction are shown in Column 3 and the regression statistics for these interactions are shown in Columns 4 through 6 Plots of the ROC analyses summarized in Tables 12 13 and 14 are shown in Figures 6 through 33 Each figure caption indicates the AUC for each of the ROC curves plotted ROC curves estimating prediction of LD by BAER Amplitude at 6000 Hz for 70 dB were influenced by gender neonatal risk status and hearing status Because of the complexity of these data we have plotted the ROC curves on two figures one for females (Fig 24a) and the other for males (Fig 24b) All ROC curves for each other endpoint are plotted on the same axis

These data indicate that the test battery was best capable of predicting IQ differences Only a very small number of tasks and tests had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for predicting either learning disability or neonatal status The CANTAB tasks seemed to hold the most promise for future use in predicting subtle neurodevelopmental differences Both the FISelf Control paradigms and most of the traditional CANTAB paradigms had high sensitivity and specificity

There was some overlap in endpoints that satisfactorily predicted more than one risk category mainly between the CANTAB and auditory processing tasks The electrophysiological endpoints that yielded acceptable prediction capacity did so only for low IQ and LD and only the tremor and the multitasking tasks showed acceptable detection capacity

The battery seemed to perform better for younger children at least where age was found to interact with the risk factor This was not a universal finding however Likewise computer and video game experience appeared to influence detection capacity for only some of the computerized tasks Among the auditory processing tasks only the Pitch-Pattern Sequence Test had acceptable sensitivity and specificity and hearing was clearly necessary for this and other auditory tasks to perform well

Intercorrelations were computed among tasks and tests listed in Tables 13 14 and 15 that tested like developmental domains using the Spearman procedure These data are shown in Tables 15 through 18 Large numbers of these correlations were significant We have therefore asterisked only those that were not significant in Tables 16-19 In general these data suggest that measures within the same test or task were highly correlated There was less interdependence across tests within the same domain and across domains

36

Risk = noRisk = yes

P300 amplitude Cz (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low High

P-300 Amplitude Cz Site

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 6 Prediction of IQ by P-300 Amplitude at Cz Site Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk status The areas under these ROC curves are 04213 07078

37

Risk = noRisk = yes

Mean reaction time for correct responses (IQ for stat

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low

High

CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig7 Prediction of IQ by Continuous Performance Task Mean Reaction Time for Correct Responses Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk The areas under these ROC curves are 05119 06979

38

Hearing=noHearing=yes

Amplitude response at 4000Hz for 70 (IQ for status

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing Status

Normal Abnormal

BAER Amplitude Response 4000 Hz and 70 dB

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig8 Prediction of IQ by BAER Amplitude Response at 4000Hz at 70 dB Prediction was dependent upon hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 05220 09949

39

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Table 14 Tests with High Sensitivity and Specificity for Predicting Learning Disability

Area Under Regression Domain and Test or Task Interactions the ROC Coefficient t p

Curve for (SE) for Interaction Interaction

Visual and Auditory Information Processing DP OAE Amplitude 6000 Hz 70dB Normal Hearing gt072 225(105) 21 003 Fine Motor Fine Motor Control

Average RT High Neonatal 071 2408(1051) 23 002 Risk

Cognitive Mean CPT RT Non-preferred 070 622(274) 23 002

Hand CANTAB Tasks

Fixed Interval Paradigm Median Inter-response Time High Neonatal gt077 003(002) 207 004

Risk Median Pauses to the Final One High Neonatal 080 18(07) 27 0008

Risk

Table 15 Tests with High Sensitivity and Specificity for Predicting Neonatal Risk Status

Area Under Regression Domain and Test or Task Interactions the ROC Coefficient t p

Curve for (SE) for Interaction Interaction

Visual and Auditory Information Processing Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Normal Hearing 093 179(76) 24 002 Trials 1+2 Correct Only Normal Hearing 088 201(103) 19 005 Perceptual Motor Monitoring and Vigilance

Percent Alarms 10-15 minutes No Computer 088 -205(92) -22 003 Experience

Cognitive CANTAB Tasks

Self-Control Paradigm Mdn Latency High Button Choices No Computer 100 -26(03 -79 00001

Experience Fixed Interval Paradigm

Median Pauses to the Final One LD 076 18(07) 27 0007

Paired Associate Learning Average Errors to Success No Computer gt076 -30(11) 25 001

Experience with or without Video

Experience

35

Each table shows the specific test or task (Column 1) and the covariates that significantly influenced the AUC ie interacted with risk status (Column 2) The area or areas under the ROC curve accounted for by each level of each interaction are shown in Column 3 and the regression statistics for these interactions are shown in Columns 4 through 6 Plots of the ROC analyses summarized in Tables 12 13 and 14 are shown in Figures 6 through 33 Each figure caption indicates the AUC for each of the ROC curves plotted ROC curves estimating prediction of LD by BAER Amplitude at 6000 Hz for 70 dB were influenced by gender neonatal risk status and hearing status Because of the complexity of these data we have plotted the ROC curves on two figures one for females (Fig 24a) and the other for males (Fig 24b) All ROC curves for each other endpoint are plotted on the same axis

These data indicate that the test battery was best capable of predicting IQ differences Only a very small number of tasks and tests had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for predicting either learning disability or neonatal status The CANTAB tasks seemed to hold the most promise for future use in predicting subtle neurodevelopmental differences Both the FISelf Control paradigms and most of the traditional CANTAB paradigms had high sensitivity and specificity

There was some overlap in endpoints that satisfactorily predicted more than one risk category mainly between the CANTAB and auditory processing tasks The electrophysiological endpoints that yielded acceptable prediction capacity did so only for low IQ and LD and only the tremor and the multitasking tasks showed acceptable detection capacity

The battery seemed to perform better for younger children at least where age was found to interact with the risk factor This was not a universal finding however Likewise computer and video game experience appeared to influence detection capacity for only some of the computerized tasks Among the auditory processing tasks only the Pitch-Pattern Sequence Test had acceptable sensitivity and specificity and hearing was clearly necessary for this and other auditory tasks to perform well

Intercorrelations were computed among tasks and tests listed in Tables 13 14 and 15 that tested like developmental domains using the Spearman procedure These data are shown in Tables 15 through 18 Large numbers of these correlations were significant We have therefore asterisked only those that were not significant in Tables 16-19 In general these data suggest that measures within the same test or task were highly correlated There was less interdependence across tests within the same domain and across domains

36

Risk = noRisk = yes

P300 amplitude Cz (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low High

P-300 Amplitude Cz Site

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 6 Prediction of IQ by P-300 Amplitude at Cz Site Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk status The areas under these ROC curves are 04213 07078

37

Risk = noRisk = yes

Mean reaction time for correct responses (IQ for stat

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low

High

CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig7 Prediction of IQ by Continuous Performance Task Mean Reaction Time for Correct Responses Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk The areas under these ROC curves are 05119 06979

38

Hearing=noHearing=yes

Amplitude response at 4000Hz for 70 (IQ for status

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing Status

Normal Abnormal

BAER Amplitude Response 4000 Hz and 70 dB

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig8 Prediction of IQ by BAER Amplitude Response at 4000Hz at 70 dB Prediction was dependent upon hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 05220 09949

39

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Each table shows the specific test or task (Column 1) and the covariates that significantly influenced the AUC ie interacted with risk status (Column 2) The area or areas under the ROC curve accounted for by each level of each interaction are shown in Column 3 and the regression statistics for these interactions are shown in Columns 4 through 6 Plots of the ROC analyses summarized in Tables 12 13 and 14 are shown in Figures 6 through 33 Each figure caption indicates the AUC for each of the ROC curves plotted ROC curves estimating prediction of LD by BAER Amplitude at 6000 Hz for 70 dB were influenced by gender neonatal risk status and hearing status Because of the complexity of these data we have plotted the ROC curves on two figures one for females (Fig 24a) and the other for males (Fig 24b) All ROC curves for each other endpoint are plotted on the same axis

These data indicate that the test battery was best capable of predicting IQ differences Only a very small number of tasks and tests had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for predicting either learning disability or neonatal status The CANTAB tasks seemed to hold the most promise for future use in predicting subtle neurodevelopmental differences Both the FISelf Control paradigms and most of the traditional CANTAB paradigms had high sensitivity and specificity

There was some overlap in endpoints that satisfactorily predicted more than one risk category mainly between the CANTAB and auditory processing tasks The electrophysiological endpoints that yielded acceptable prediction capacity did so only for low IQ and LD and only the tremor and the multitasking tasks showed acceptable detection capacity

The battery seemed to perform better for younger children at least where age was found to interact with the risk factor This was not a universal finding however Likewise computer and video game experience appeared to influence detection capacity for only some of the computerized tasks Among the auditory processing tasks only the Pitch-Pattern Sequence Test had acceptable sensitivity and specificity and hearing was clearly necessary for this and other auditory tasks to perform well

Intercorrelations were computed among tasks and tests listed in Tables 13 14 and 15 that tested like developmental domains using the Spearman procedure These data are shown in Tables 15 through 18 Large numbers of these correlations were significant We have therefore asterisked only those that were not significant in Tables 16-19 In general these data suggest that measures within the same test or task were highly correlated There was less interdependence across tests within the same domain and across domains

36

Risk = noRisk = yes

P300 amplitude Cz (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low High

P-300 Amplitude Cz Site

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 6 Prediction of IQ by P-300 Amplitude at Cz Site Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk status The areas under these ROC curves are 04213 07078

37

Risk = noRisk = yes

Mean reaction time for correct responses (IQ for stat

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low

High

CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig7 Prediction of IQ by Continuous Performance Task Mean Reaction Time for Correct Responses Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk The areas under these ROC curves are 05119 06979

38

Hearing=noHearing=yes

Amplitude response at 4000Hz for 70 (IQ for status

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing Status

Normal Abnormal

BAER Amplitude Response 4000 Hz and 70 dB

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig8 Prediction of IQ by BAER Amplitude Response at 4000Hz at 70 dB Prediction was dependent upon hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 05220 09949

39

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Risk = noRisk = yes

P300 amplitude Cz (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low High

P-300 Amplitude Cz Site

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 6 Prediction of IQ by P-300 Amplitude at Cz Site Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk status The areas under these ROC curves are 04213 07078

37

Risk = noRisk = yes

Mean reaction time for correct responses (IQ for stat

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low

High

CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig7 Prediction of IQ by Continuous Performance Task Mean Reaction Time for Correct Responses Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk The areas under these ROC curves are 05119 06979

38

Hearing=noHearing=yes

Amplitude response at 4000Hz for 70 (IQ for status

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing Status

Normal Abnormal

BAER Amplitude Response 4000 Hz and 70 dB

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig8 Prediction of IQ by BAER Amplitude Response at 4000Hz at 70 dB Prediction was dependent upon hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 05220 09949

39

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Risk = noRisk = yes

Mean reaction time for correct responses (IQ for stat

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Neonatal Risk Status Low

High

CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig7 Prediction of IQ by Continuous Performance Task Mean Reaction Time for Correct Responses Prediction of IQ was dependent upon on neonatal risk The areas under these ROC curves are 05119 06979

38

Hearing=noHearing=yes

Amplitude response at 4000Hz for 70 (IQ for status

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing Status

Normal Abnormal

BAER Amplitude Response 4000 Hz and 70 dB

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig8 Prediction of IQ by BAER Amplitude Response at 4000Hz at 70 dB Prediction was dependent upon hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 05220 09949

39

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Hearing=noHearing=yes

Amplitude response at 4000Hz for 70 (IQ for status

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing Status

Normal Abnormal

BAER Amplitude Response 4000 Hz and 70 dB

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig8 Prediction of IQ by BAER Amplitude Response at 4000Hz at 70 dB Prediction was dependent upon hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 05220 09949

39

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R (IQ for status)se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trial 1+2 Correct + Reversed

Age=102 Hearing=no Age=120 Hearing=no Age=136 Hearing=no Age=102 Hearing=yes Age=120 Hearing=yes Age=136 Hearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 9 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by both the childrsquos age and his or her hearing status The areas under the ROC curve are 09860 09411 08417 09999 09994 09962 Hearing Status of ldquonordquo means normal and ldquoyesrdquo means abnormal

41

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C only (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

Age=102 Age=120 Age=136

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 10 Prediction of IQ by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1 and 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by the childrsquos age The areas under the ROC curves are 09533 09133 08599

42

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Gesture minus verbal - correct amp reversed (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Gesture - Verbal Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 11 Prediction of IQ by the Pitch Pattern Test Gesture ndash Verbal Correct + Reversed Prediction was unaffected by any covariates The area under the curve was 07201

43

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

hazard 10-15min (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 12 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Percent Hazards 10-15 Minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and by experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are (A) 09083 05096 09829 07918

44

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

ave reaction time (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 13 Prediction of IQ by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Average Reaction Time Prediction was affected by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 08743 06809

45

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Tremor power - mradssec (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Female Male

Fine Motor Control Tremor Power (mradssec)

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 14 Prediction of IQ by Fine Motor Control Task Termor Power Prediction was influenced by subjectrsquos gender The areas under the ROC curves are 07487 05872

46

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

PAL mean errors to success (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB PAL Means Errors to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 15 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09311 03019 09975 07891

47

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

PAL mean trials to success (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB PAL Mean Trials to Success

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 16 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB Paired Associate Learning Task Mean Trials to Success Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 03790 07831

48

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Hi-reward longdelay choicetotal choices (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices

Video=noRisk=noVideo=no Neonatal Risk=no Video=yesRisk=noVideo=yes Neonatal Risk=no Video=noRisk=yesVideo=no Neonatal Risk=yes

Video=yes Neonatal Video=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 17 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Long Delay ChoicesTotal Choices Prediction was influenced by experience playing video games and by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 08309 05130 09452 07501

49

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Median latency for HI button responses (IQ for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button Responses

NR=no Age=107 Comp=no Risk=noAge=131Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=no

NR=no Age=131 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=107Comp=no NR=yes Age=107 Comp=no Risk=yesAge=131Comp=no NR=yes Age=131 Comp=no Risk=noAge=107Comp=yes NR=no Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=noAge=131Comp=yes NR=no Age=131 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=107Comp=yes NR=yes Age=107 Comp=yes Risk=yesAge=131Comp=yes NR=yes Age=131 Comp=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 18 Prediction of IQ by Choice Paradigm Median Latency for Hi Button Responses Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status (NR) experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and age The areas under the ROC curves are 09995 09963 09999 09994 07653 05512 09023 07581

50

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

IED total trials - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Trials

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 19 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Trials Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05687 04511 05726 08878

51

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

IED total errors - adjusted (IQ for status) se

nsiti

vity

00

02

04

06

08

10

CANTAB IED Total Errors

LD=noRisk=noLD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=noLD=yes NR=no LD=noRisk=yesLD=no NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yesLD=yes NR=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 20 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Total Error Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05696 04227 05851 08820

52

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

IED stages completed (IQ for status)

CANTAB IED Total Stages

LD=noRisk=no LD=no NR=no LD=yesRisk=no LD=yes NR=no LD=no NR=yes LD=noRisk=yes LD=yes NR=yes LD=yesRisk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 21 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB IED Stages Score Prediction was influenced by LD status (LD) and neonatal risk (NR) status The areas under the ROC curves are 05669 03270 05399 08932

53

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

DMS Percent Correct - Long Delay (IQ for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Video=no Video=yes

CANTAB DMS Correct Long Delay

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 22 Prediction of IQ by CANTAB DMS Task Percent Correct Long Delay Prediction was affected by experience playing video games The areas under the ROC curves are 04827 07752

54

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Mean reaction time for correct responses (LD for status)

se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

Left handed Right handed

Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 23 Prediction of LD by Visual CPT Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by the subjectrsquos hand preference The areas under the ROC curves are 06949 04600

55

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for stat se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Females

FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no FemaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes FemaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24a Prediction of LD in Females by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under these ROC curves are 06287 05186 01279 05736

56

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Amplitude response at 6000Hz for 70 (LD for statu

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

BAER Amplitude Response 6000 Hz for 70 dB in Males

MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=no MaleNeonatal Risk=noHearing=yes MaleNeonatal Risk=yesHearing=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 24b Prediction of LD in Males by BAER Amplitude Response at 6000Hz for 70 dB Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk and hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 09798 09614 07204 09717

57

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Risk = noRisk = yes

ave reaction time (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time

NR = no NR = yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 25 Prediction of LD by Fine Motor Control Mean Reaction Time Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk status The areas under the ROC curves are 04897 07134

58

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Median of pauses to the final one (LD for status)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Risk = no Risk = yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

NR NR

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 26 Prediction of LD by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 05485 08029

59

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Median interresponse time (LD for status)se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

FI Mdn IRT

IQ=87 Risk=noIQ=87 NR=no IQ=99 Risk=noIQ=99 NR=no IQ=110 Risk=noIQ=110 NR=no IQ=87 NR=yes IQ=87 Risk=yesIQ=99 NR=yes IQ=99 Risk=yesIQ=110 NR=yes IQ=110 Risk=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 27 Prediction of LD by FI Task Median Inter-response Time (IRT) Prediction was influenced by IQ and neonatal risk (NR) The areas under the ROC curves are 06451 05398 04404 07665 08109 08468

60

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C + R

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct + Reversed

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 28 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Test Trials 1+2 Correct + Reversed Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04694 09292

61

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Trial 1 + 2 correct = C (only)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Hearing=no Hearing=yes

Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trails 1 + 2 Correct Only

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 29 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Pitch Pattern Sequence Test Trials 1 + 2 Correct Only Prediction was influenced by hearing status The areas under the ROC curves are 04500 08752

62

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

alarm (10-15min)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 Min

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 30 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Monitoring and Vigilance Task Alarms 10-15 minutes Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 08838 04813

63

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Median latency for HI button responses

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

Computer=no Computer=yes

Choice Paradigm Mdn Latency for Hi Button

Choices

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 31 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by Choice Paradigm FI Median Latency for Hi Button Choices Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda The areas under the ROC curves are 10000 05033

64

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Median of pauses to the final one (PRP)

sens

itivi

ty

00

02

04

06

08

10

LD=no LD=yes

FI Mdn Pauses to the Final One

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 32 Prediction of Neonatal Risk by FI Median Pauses to the Final One Prediction was influenced by LD status The areas under these ROC curves are 10000 05033 (top) 04980 07658 (middle) 09196 01357 09951 05308 (bottom)

65

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

PAL mean errors to success se

nsiti

vity

0

0 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 1

0

CANTAB PAL Errors

to Success

Comp=noVid=no Comp=yesVid=no Comp=noVid=yes Comp=yesVid=yes

00 02 04 06 08 10

1 - specificity

Fig 33 Predition of Neonatal Risk by CANTAB Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Mean Errors to Success Prediction was influenced by experience with computer manipulanda (Comp) and experience playing video games (Vid) The areas under the ROC curves are 09196 01357 09951 05308

66

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Table 16 Intercorrelations Auditory Processing Tasks

Pitch Pattern Correct Only Correct + Reversed Gestures ndash Verbal Sequence Test Correct + Reversed

Correct Only --- 087 -057 Correct + Reversed 087 --- -049 Gestures-Verbal -057 -049 ---

Correct + Reversed

Table 17 Intercorrelations Perceptual Motor and Sensory Tasks

Task Monitoring and Vigilance Fine Motor Control Alarms Hazards Reaction Time Power

(mradssec) Monitoring and Vigilance Alarms 10-15 min --- 079 011 028 Hazards 10-15 min 079 --- 016 032 Fine Motor Control Reaction Time 011 016 --- 043 Power (mradssec) 028 032 043 ---

p gt 005 (non-significant)

Table 18 Intercorrelations Auditory and Visual Electrophysiological Endpoints

Task DP OAE Cognitive VEPs (P-300) 4000 Hz 6000Hz Amplitude Cz CPT RT

DP OAE 70dB 4000 Hz --- 070 007 -012 6000 Hz 070 --- 007 -012 Cognitive VEPs Amplitude Cz 007 007 --- 018 CPT Reaction Time for -012 -012 018 ---

Correct Responses p gt 005 (non-significant)

67

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68

Table 19 Intercorrelations Final CANTAB FI and Choice Endpoints

Intra- and Extra- Delayed Fixed Interval Paired Self-Control Dimensional Shift Matching Associate

Task Long Learning Trials Errors Stages

Completed Delay Pause

Duration Inter-response

Time Errors Trials High

Button High-Button

Choices Choice Latency

Intra- and Extra-Dimensional Shift Trials --- 094 099 027 009 006 019 018 004 003 Errors 094 --- 096 022 -012 -006 -013 -011 -001 -003 Stages 099 096 --- -025 -011 -006 018 016 -002 003

Delayed -027 022 -025 --- 012 -001 -031 -031 003 -021 Match-to-Sample Long Delay Fixed Interval Pause 010 -012 011 012 --- 085 -006 -006 0006 002 Duration

IRT 006 -006 007 -001 085 --- 004 004 003 001 Paired Associate Learning Errors 019 -013 018 -031 -006 -003 --- 095 -031 028 Trials 018 -011 016 -031 -006 -004 095 --- -034 022

Self-Control High -004 -003 -001 004 0006 003 -031 -034 --- 031

Button Choices

High -004 -004 -003 -020 002 001 028 022 031 ---Button Latency

p gt 005 (non-significant)

68