Clinical evaluation of music perception, appraisal and experience in cochlear implant users
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
OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the relationships among music perception, appraisal, and experience in cochlear implant users in multiple clinical settings and to examine the viability of two assessments designed for clinical use. DESIGN: Background questionnaires (IMBQ) were administered by audiologists in 14 clinics in the United States and Canada. The CAMP included tests of pitch-direction discrimination, and melody and timbre recognition. The IMBQ queried users on prior musical involvement, music listening habits pre and post implant, and music appraisals. STUDY SAMPLE: One-hundred forty-five users of Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Ltd cochlear implants. RESULTS: Performance on pitch direction discrimination, melody recognition, and timbre recognition tests were consistent with previous studies with smaller cohorts, as well as with more extensive protocols conducted in other centers. Relationships between perceptual accuracy and music enjoyment were weak, suggesting that perception and appraisal are relatively independent for CI users. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptual abilities as measured by the CAMP had little to no relationship with music appraisals and little relationship with musical experience. The CAMP and IMBQ are feasible for routine clinical use, providing results consistent with previous thorough laboratory-based investigations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 it