Speech Detection in Noise and Spatial Unmasking in Children With Simultaneous Versus Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To measure speech detection in noise performance for children with bilateral cochlear implants (BiCI), to compare performance in children with simultaneous implant versus those with sequential implant, and to compare performance to normal-hearing children. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary academic pediatric center. PATIENTS: Children with early-onset bilateral deafness and 2-year BiCI experience, comprising the "sequential" group (>2 yr interimplantation delay, n = 12) and "simultaneous group" (no interimplantation delay, n = 10) and normal-hearing controls (n = 8). INTERVENTION: Thresholds to speech detection (at 0-degree azimuth) were measured with noise at 0-degree azimuth or ± 90-degree azimuth. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spatial unmasking (SU) as the noise condition changed from 0-degree azimuth to ± 90-degree azimuth and binaural summation advantage (BSA) of 2 over 1 CI. RESULTS: Speech detection in noise was significantly poorer than controls for both BiCI groups (p < 0.0001). However, the SU in the simultaneous group approached levels found in normal controls (7.2 ± 0.6 versus 8.6 ± 0.6 dB, p > 0.05) and was significantly better than that in the sequential group (3.9 ± 0.4 dB, p < 0.05). Spatial unmasking was unaffected by the side of noise presentation in the simultaneous group but, in the sequential group, was significantly better when noise was moved to the second rather than the first implanted ear (4.8 ± 0.5 versus 3.0 ± 0.4 dB, p < 0.05). This was consistent with a larger BSA from the sequential group's second rather than first CI. CONCLUSION: Children with simultaneously implanted BiCI demonstrated an advantage over children with sequential implant by using spatial cues to improve speech detection in noise.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".