Auditory performance and subjective benefits in adults with congenital or prelinguistic deafness who receive cochlear implants during adulthood
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: (1) To describe auditory performance and subjective benefits in adults with congenital or prelingual deafness who received a cochlear implant (CI) during adolescence or adulthood, and (2) to examine the benefits as experienced by these CI users. METHODS: Twenty-one adults aged 23-65 years participated in the study. All had a congenital or prelingual deafness (onset before age 3). They received a CI between the age of 16 and 61 years (mean age: 31). Speech recognition scores before and after implantation were computed and a questionnaire on subjective benefits (French adaptation of the Adult Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, designed by Zwolan and collaborators (1996, Self-report of CI use and satisfaction by prelingually deafened adults. Ear and Hearing, 17(3): 198-210) was administered. Semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted with a subsample of seven participants. RESULTS: Speech recognition scores after implantation ranged from 0 to 95%. Despite large inter-individual variability, most participants expressed high levels satisfaction and overall usefulness. Correlational analyses showed that speech recognition performance was moderately associated with subjective benefits. Data from the interviews revealed that the underlying sources of satisfaction with the implant are related to the discovery and enjoyment of environmental sounds, easier lip-reading, and improvement of self-confidence during communicative interactions. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: CI benefits are mostly subjective in this particular population: descriptive and qualitative approaches allow us to obtain a nuanced portrait of their experience and provide us with important elements that are not easily measurable with tests and scores.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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