Pitch discrimination in children using cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in pitch perception by cochlear implant users has focused primarily on postlingually deafened adults. Little is currently known regarding the pitch perception abilities of those who are implanted at a very early age, yet many children receive cochlear implants when they are less than 2 years old. Given the effects of brain plasticity, it is conceivable that pitch perception by early cochlear implant users may be much better than that of their older counterparts. This study examines pitch discrimination thresholds in young cochlear-implant users between the ages of 4 and 16. A computer game was developed to determine difference limens for fundamental frequency in vowellike stimuli at three referent frequencies: 100, 200, and 400 Hz. Two different tasks were employed: pitchdiscrimination, in which subjects were asked whether two stimuli are same or different, and pitch ranking, in which participants determine which of two stimuli is higher in pitch. Normal-hearing matches were tested to control for maturational effects, and adult cochlear implant users were also tested to compare findings with other studies. [Work supported by the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".