Overview of Nine Computerized, Home-Based Auditory-Training Programs for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computerized, home-based auditory-training programs could be attractive to cochlear implant (CI) recipients who cannot obtain direct intensive training services and also to busy clinicians who would like to enable CI recipients to benefit from these programs. However, it is difficult for either group to know which of the many programs available might best suit individual needs. PURPOSE: Selecting a computerized home-based program can be challenging because each offers different features. This article provides an overview of currently available programs to help clinicians and recipients choose one that is most suitable. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A narrative literature review and an advanced Google search of Web sites linked to auditory-training programs were conducted. This overview builds on and updates information from previous literature. RESULTS: Nine computerized, home-based auditory-training programs were identified for overview. Twenty-nine information items and features for each of the nine programs are presented, categorized by general product and purchase information, design features of the training paradigm, and auditory and communication targets. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides a descriptive overview of computerized, home-based auditory-training programs for the use of clinicians, CI recipients, researchers, and hearing aid users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".