Language Achievement in Children Who Received Cochlear Implants Between 1 and 2 Years of Age: Group Trends and Individual Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined receptive and expressive vocabulary and grammar achievement of French-speaking children (n = 27) who received a cochlear implant (CI) between the age of 1 and 2. Standardized measures of language achievement were administered and the language levels attained by children with CIs were compared with that of the normative sample of same-age hearing peers for each measure. As a group, children exhibited language levels within normal limits in all standardized language measures. Examination of individual patterns revealed four different language profiles ranging from normal language levels in all domains to general language delay. Half the participants displayed language levels on par with similar-age peers at the word level; less than half the children obtained average performance at the sentence level. In three of these profiles, comprehension of sentences was impaired. Moreover, the age at implantation was not associated with language achievement. Findings suggest that receiving a CI between the age of 1 and 2 years does not ensure that language abilities will be within normal limits after up to 6 years of experience with the implant.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".