MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534994122 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000379

Visual Temporal Acuity Is Related to Auditory Speech Perception Abilities in Cochlear Implant Users

2016· article· en· W2534994122 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly N. Jahn, Ryan A. Stevenson, Mark T. Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCochlear implantAudiologySpeech perceptionPsychologyPerceptionConsonantVisual perceptionAuditory perceptionSpeech recognitionMedicineComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Despite significant improvements in speech perception abilities following cochlear implantation, many prelingually deafened cochlear implant (CI) recipients continue to rely heavily on visual information to develop speech and language. Increased reliance on visual cues for understanding spoken language could lead to the development of unique audiovisual integration and visual-only processing abilities in these individuals. Brain imaging studies have demonstrated that good CI performers, as indexed by auditory-only speech perception abilities, have different patterns of visual cortex activation in response to visual and auditory stimuli as compared with poor CI performers. However, no studies have examined whether speech perception performance is related to any type of visual processing abilities following cochlear implantation. The purpose of the present study was to provide a preliminary examination of the relationship between clinical, auditory-only speech perception tests, and visual temporal acuity in prelingually deafened adult CI users. It was hypothesized that prelingually deafened CI users, who exhibit better (i.e., more acute) visual temporal processing abilities would demonstrate better auditory-only speech perception performance than those with poorer visual temporal acuity. DESIGN: Ten prelingually deafened adult CI users were recruited for this study. Participants completed a visual temporal order judgment task to quantify visual temporal acuity. To assess auditory-only speech perception abilities, participants completed the consonant-nucleus-consonant word recognition test and the AzBio sentence recognition test. Results were analyzed using two-tailed partial Pearson correlations, Spearman's rho correlations, and independent samples t tests. RESULTS: Visual temporal acuity was significantly correlated with auditory-only word and sentence recognition abilities. In addition, proficient CI users, as assessed via auditory-only speech perception performance, demonstrated significantly better visual temporal acuity than nonproficient CI users. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide the first behavioral evidence that visual temporal acuity is related to post implantation CI proficiency as indexed by auditory-only speech perception performance. These preliminary data bring to light the possible future role of visual temporal acuity in predicting CI outcomes before implantation, as well as the possible utility of visual training methods in improving CI outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207