Examining the Impact of Cochlear Implantation on the Early Gross Motor Development of Children With a Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: As deaf children are now implanted at a very early age, the influence of a cochlear implant (CI) on the early motor development of children with a hearing loss becomes relevant. Design: Forty-eight children with a hearing loss were included in this controlled prospective follow-up study and were subdivided into a CI group (n = 23) receiving a CI during the follow-up period and a control group (n = 25) receiving no CI during the follow-up period. All children were assessed around the ages of 6 (T1), 12 (T2), 18 (T3), and 24 (T4) months with a motor test battery consisting of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2), Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) (only at T1 and T2), and Ghent Developmental Balance Test (GDBT) (only at T3 and T4). In addition, collic vestibular-evoked myogenic potential testing was performed in all children. Group differences in PDMS-2 Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ), Fine Motor Quotient, AIMS z score, and GDBT z score were analyzed using Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analysis for repeated measures. Results: For PDMS-2 GMQ, the LMM revealed significant effects for group (p = 0.04), test moment (p < 0.001), and for the interaction between these two factors (p = 0.035). Contrasts indicated that the CI group showed a greater deterioration in PDMS-2 GMQ between T2 and T3 compared with that showed by the control group (p = 0.002). The LMM for PDMS-2 Fine Motor Quotient and AIMS z score showed no significant effects. For GDBT z score, the LMM pointed out significant effects for group (p = 0.013) and test moment (p < 0.001), but no significant interaction between these two factors. Contrasts indicated that the CI group performed significantly weaker than the control group at both test moments (T3 and T4; all p < 0.012) and that both groups showed a significant recovery in GDBTz scores between T3 and T4 (all p < 0.012). Conclusions: This study shows that the trajectory of gross motor development can be changed in children with a hearing loss after a cochlear implantation. Implanted children show a drop in their gross motor performance within the age range of 6 to 18 months, at which period the majority of the implantations took place, with a tendency of recovery toward the age of 2 years. However, longer follow-up will be necessary to trace whether the implanted children catch up their motor delay in comparison with nonimplanted children with a hearing loss at later age. Forty-eight children with a hearing loss were included in this controlled prospective follow-up study and were subdivided in a CI group and a control group. All children were assessed around the ages of 6, 12, 18, and 24 months with a motor test battery and colic Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (cVEMP) testing. This study shows that the trajectory of gross motor development can be changed in children with a hearing loss after cochlear implantation. Implanted children show a drop in their gross motor performance within the age range of 6 to 18 months, when the majority of the implantations took place, with a tendency of recovery afterward.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".