Unilateral Cochlear Implant Use Promotes Normal-Like Loudness Perception in Adolescents With Childhood Deafness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: Behavioral measures of cochlear implant (CI) device stimulation levels can be difficult to obtain in individuals with limited or no hearing experience. Loudness measures are particularly challenging. It would therefore be useful to have a battery of objective and behavioral measures to determine CI stimulation levels in listeners with childhood deafness. In the present study, the authors characterized loudness growth in 20 adolescents: 8 with normal hearing and 12 CI participants with pre/perilingual bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. They asked (1) do adolescent CI users with childhood deafness experience similar increases in loudness as their peers with normal hearing? and (2) can loudness be predicted by objective measures of auditory activity? The authors hypothesized that loudness perception would be significantly different between CI and normal-hearing groups and that it would correlate with objective measures. Design: CI users were recruited from the Cochlear Implant Program at The Hospital for Sick Children and all had used unilateral Nucleus CIs for at least 2 years. The dynamic range for each participant was defined as the difference between the behavioral threshold and the electrically evoked stapedius reflex (ESR) threshold. Loudness growth was assessed within this range behaviorally on a continuous visual scale and objectively with physiological measures. Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and ESRs were recorded in both groups and electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) of the auditory nerve were recorded in addition in CI listeners. The regression line slopes of ECAP and ABR amplitude growth functions were then calculated and compared with behavioral loudness growth slopes in the upper portion (40–100%) and lower portion (0–40%) of the dynamic range. Electrical pulse stimuli (in CI users) and acoustic clicks (in normal-hearing participants) were presented within each participant’s dynamic range. Results: The mean dynamic range in CI listeners was more variable than in normal-hearing individuals. Despite this difference, loudness at the ESR threshold was not significantly different in CI adolescents from their normal-hearing peers, and CI users exhibited normal-like loudness growth. There was a significantly positive correlation between ECAP amplitude growth and loudness growth in CI users in the upper portion of the dynamic range, while ABR wave V amplitude growth was not related to loudness growth in either group. Conclusions: We confirmed that the ESR threshold is a good measure of comfortably loud levels in adolescents with cochlear implants and their normal-hearing peers. Adolescents using CIs show normal-like rates of loudness growth on average, despite having highly variable dynamic ranges of hearing. Individual rates of loudness growth in the upper dynamic range in CI users can be predicted by the rate of amplitude growth of the ECAP. Thus, the rate of neural recruitment with increasing CI current is important for loudness perception in pre/perilingually deaf listeners and should be considered when programming their CIs. Minimum and maximum stimulation levels must be set individually for children using cochlear implants (CI), but there is little information on loudness growth between these endpoints. This study investigated whether loudness grows normally in CI adolescents and if the rate can be predicted objectively. Results indicate that, despite having variable ranges between threshold and stapedius reflex, loudness perception is normal-like in CI users. Individual differences in loudness growth rates can be predicted by the rate of auditory nerve response amplitude growth. Loudness growth is associated with the rate of neural recruitment and should be considered when setting stimulation levels.
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".