The Ears of the Deaf Unstopped: Changes Associated with Cochlear Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Center for Applied Research on Childhood Deafness at Central Institute for the Deaf (St. Louis, MO) has been collecting data on the speech perception, speech production, language level, and reading skills of profoundly deaf children for over 30 years. A recent study examined children from across the United States and Canada who used cochlear implants. When these results are compared with those obtained in past studies with similar children who used hearing aids, the following trends are apparent: (1) Auditory speech perception ability has improved; (2) there is a stronger relation between auditory speech perception ability and oral communication; (3) there is a closer approximation to the language of hearing age-mates; (4) there is an increased use of speech by children in total communication programs; and (5) the acquisition of reading is accelerated. As Ira Hirsh predicted, even limited auditory skills play an important role in language development. This role is evidenced in the improved speech perception, spoken language and reading scores of profoundly deaf children who used cochlear implants compared to similarly impaired children who used hearing aids before implants were available. KEYWORDS Childhood deafness - cochlear implants - speech perception - language development
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".