Users' perspectives on the benefits of FM systems with cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored: (1) the benefits of an FM system in real-world environments from the perspective of adults with coch-lear implants, and (2) the factors and barriers to using an FM system with a cochlear implant. Using a qualitative research design, 14 adults with unilateral cochlear implants recorded their experiences during a two-month trial period with a personal FM system and responded to a questionnaire at the end of the trial. A detailed analysis of 169 journal entries (230 hours of FM use) permitted a description of the benefits and negative aspects associated with FM use in everyday listening environments. The primary benefits were related to improved access to and quality of sound, improved distance listening, ease of listening, and better social integration. Negative perceptions were associated with the equipment both with regard to physical aspects and adjustments. In addition, technical, individual, social, and environmental factors were identified that can influence the user's decision to use the FM device. Questionnaire responses indicated that the majority of individuals rated the FM system as somewhat or very helpful. The findings suggest that FM systems can improve communication in everyday listening environments for some adults with cochlear implants.SumarioEste estudio exploró: (1) los beneficios de un sistema FM en ambientes de la vida real desde la perspectiva de adultos con implante coclear, y (2) los factores y barreras del uso de un sistema FM con un implante coclear. Durante un periodo de 2 meses y mediante un diseño de investigación cualitativo, 14 adultos con implantes cocleares unilaterales registraron sus experiencias con un sistema personal de FM y respondieron a un cuestionario al final del ensayo. Un análisis detallado de 169 de anotaciones en el diario (230 horas de uso del FM) permitieron una descripción de los beneficios y los aspectos negativos asociados con el uso del FM en ambientes de escucha cotidianos. Los beneficios primarios estuvieron relacionados con mejor acceso y mejor calidad de sonido, mejoría en la audición a distancia, facilidad para escuchar y mejor integración social. Las percepciones negativas se asociaron con el equipo, tanto en relación con sus aspectos físicos, como con los ajustes. Además, se identificaron factores técnicos, individuales, sociales y ambientales que pueden influir en la decisión del usuario de utilizar un dispositivo de FM. Las respuestas del cuestionario indicaron que la mayoría de los individuos calificaron el sistema de FM como un tanto útil o muy útil. Los hallazgos sugieren que los sistemas FM pueden mejorar la comunicación en los ambientes cotidianos de escucha para algunos adultos con implante coclear.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".