Effect of Cochlear Implantation on Nasality in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypernasality is a commonly perceived characteristic of speech in deaf adults and children, but the mechanism of this abnormal nasal resonance is poorly understood. The impact of cochlear implantation on nasalance measures in children with severe auditory deprivation has not been previously reported. We conducted a study of nasality in 6 deaf children who had undergone cochlear implantation. Voice recordings were obtained before surgery and 6 months after activation of the implants. The MacKay-Kummer SNAP Test--which consists of a syllable-repetition subtest and a picture-cued subtest--was used to obtain nasalance scores for oral (bilabial, alveolar, velar, and sibilant) and nasal phonemes. Before cochlear implantation, mean nasalance scores were significantly higher than normal during the production of oral phonemes for both subtests (p < or = 0.05). Six months after activation, the nasalance measures for all components of the syllable-repetition subtest had been restored to within 1 standard deviation of normal. For all oral phonemes of the picture-cued subtest, the elevated nasalance scores were consistently lower after cochlear implant activation, although the difference was statistically significant only for velar tasks. Nasalance scores for nasal phonemes were within 1 standard deviation of normal both before and after implant activation. Our study showed that cochlear implantation partially corrects elevated nasalance measures. Disturbances in nasal resonance may be caused in part by the inability of deaf speakers to monitor velopharyngeal valving with auditory feedback. The trend toward improved nasalance scores after implantation highlights the role of auditory feedback in monitoring velopharyngeal function. Visual biofeedback may be required to further normalize hypernasal speech in profoundly deaf children.
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 | 0.001 | 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".