The Effects of Asymmetric Hearing on Bilateral Brainstem Function: Findings in Children with Bimodal (Electric and Acoustic) Hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As implantation criteria are broadening to include children with asymmetric hearing loss, it is important to determine the degree of residual hearing needed to protect the bilateral auditory pathways for binaural hearing and whether there is a sensitive period in development for implantation in these children. We have been studying these questions in a growing cohort of children. In the present study, auditory brainstem responses were recorded in 21 children who had 2.2 ± 2.2 years of bimodal hearing. Responses were evoked by 11-Hz acoustic clicks presented to the non-implanted ear and with biphasic electric pulses presented to the implanted ear. Twelve of these children also completed a behavioural task in which they were asked to which side of their heads bilaterally presented clicks/pulses that varied in interaural level or timing lateralized. All children experienced a delay in the non-implanted ear that resulted in 2.0 ± 0.35 ms longer peak latencies. These were further prolonged in 7 children as measured by longer interwave latencies from this ear than from the implanted ear. Despite large asymmetries in timing of brainstem activity between the two ears, all children perceived changes in interaural level differences. They were unable to detect differences in interaural timing cues. Symmetric brainstem function suggests bilateral development was preserved in some children. Future work will explore whether these children have better potential for developing binaural hearing using bimodal input.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".