The Challenges of Restoring Binaural Hearing: A Study of Binaural Fusion, Listening Effort, and Music Perception in Children using Bilateral Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benefits from bilateral implantation vary and are limited by mismatched devices, stimulation schemes, and abnormal development. We asked whether bilateral implant use promotes binaural fusion, reduces listening effort, or enhances music perception in children. Binaural fusion (perception of 1 vs. 2 sounds) was assessed behaviourally and reaction times and pupillary changes were recorded simultaneously to measure effort. The child's Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia was modified and administered to evaluate music perception. Bilaterally implanted children heard a fused percept less frequently than normal hearing peers, possibly due to impaired cortical integration and device limitations, but fusion improved in children who were older and had less brainstem asymmetry and when there was a level difference. Poorer fusion was associated with increased effort, which may have resulted from diminished bottom-up processing. Children with bilateral implants perceived music as accurately as unilaterally implanted peers and improved performance with greater bilateral implant use.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".