Bimodal benefits of cochlear implant and hearing aid (on the non-implanted ear): a pilot study to develop a protocol and a test battery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This is a pilot study that aims (1) to help design a protocol for fitting and optimizing cochlear implants and hearing aids, (2) to help design a test battery that can help monitor children's progress and (3) to assess the benefit of using a cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid. Seven children between the ages of seven and 15 years completed the study. None of them had worn a contralateral hearing aid (HA) since cochlear implantation (five to seven years after implantation). The Listening Inventory for Education (LIFE), Life Situation Questionnaire (LSQ), and Client Orientated Scale of Improvement for Children (COSI-C) questionnaires together with subject's feedback were used as subjective measures, and speech perception tests - the City of New York (sentences list) (CUNY) and Bamford-Kowal-Bench (sentences list) (BKB) depending on child's speech perception skills - in quiet and in noise were used as objective measures. The results showed mixed subjective feedback, even though objectively all children improved their speech perception scores when wearing cochlear implants and hearing aids. The COSI-C proved to be the most successful tool to collect feedback from parents.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it