Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A range of basic and applied studies have demonstrated that during the development of the auditory system, early experimental manipulations or clinical interventions are generally more effective than those made later. We present a short review of these studies. We investigated this age-related plasticity in relation to the timing of cochlear implantation in deaf-from-birth children. Cochlear implantation is a standard intervention for providing hearing in children with severe to profound deafness. An important practical question is whether there is a critical period or cutoff age of implantation after which hearing outcomes are significantly reduced. In this article, we present data from prelingually deaf children (mostly congenitally deaf) implanted at ages ranging from 1 to 15 years. Each child was tested with auditory and speech understanding tests before implantation, and at regular intervals up to 8 years postimplantation. We measured the improvement in performance of speech understanding tests in younger implanted children and compared it with the results of those implanted at a later age. We also used a binary partitioning algorithm to divide the data systematically at all ages at implant to determine the optimum split, i.e., to determine the age at implant which best separates performance of early implanted versus later implanted children. We observed distinct age-of-implant cutoffs, and will discuss whether these really represent critical periods during 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it