Effect of auditory status on visual emotion recognition in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents with severe to profound hearing loss who wear cochlear implants (CIs) experience significantly more peer problems compared to peers with typical hearing (TH). Differences in peer social dynamics may relate to perception not only of message content, but also message intent based on a speaker's emotion from visual (e.g. facial expressions) and auditory (e.g. prosody) cues. Pediatric CI users may experience greater difficulty with auditory emotion recognition due to an impoverished signal representation provided by the device, but the effect of auditory status on visual emotion recognition yields conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: The current study examined accuracy and speed of visual emotion recognition in adolescents with CIs and peers with TH. METHODS: Participants included 58 adolescents (10-18 years) stratified by auditory status: 34 CI users and 24 TH peers. Participants identified the intended emotion (i.e. happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise) of static images of faces displayed on a computer screen. RESULTS: No significant differences by auditory status emerged for response accuracy, response time to all trials, or response time to correct trials. Type of emotion significantly affected both accuracy and response time. CONCLUSION: Adolescents with CIs show similar accuracy and response time in recognizing static facial expressions compared to TH peers. Future studies should explore the association between visual emotion recognition and social well-being to determine the relationship between emotion recognition and overall quality of life in adolescents with CIs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".