Prosody perception and musical pitch discrimination in adults using cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated prosodic perception and musical pitch discrimination in adults using cochlear implants (CI), and examined the relationship between prosody perception scores and non-linguistic auditory measures, demographic variables, and speech recognition scores. DESIGN: Participants were given four subtests of the PEPS-C (profiling elements of prosody in speech-communication), the adult paralanguage subtest of the DANVA 2 (diagnostic analysis of non verbal accuracy 2), and the contour and interval subtests of the MBEA (Montreal battery of evaluation of amusia). STUDY SAMPLE: Twelve CI users aged 25;5 to 78;0 years participated. RESULTS: CI participants performed significantly more poorly than normative values for New Zealand adults for PEPS-C turn-end, affect, and contrastive stress reception subtests, but were not different from the norm for the chunking reception subtest. Performance on the DANVA 2 adult paralanguage subtest was lower than the normative mean reported by Saindon (2010) . Most of the CI participants performed at chance level on both MBEA subtests. CONCLUSION: CI users have difficulty perceiving prosodic information accurately. Difficulty in understanding different aspects of prosody and music may be associated with reduced pitch perception ability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".