Animal and human studies on developmental monaural hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asymmetric hearing has been the focus of many studies on brain plasticity in the past. Recently, the topic has gained clinical importance in cases with sequential cochlear implantation or in cases with deafness in one ear and preserved hearing in the other ear. Convergent evidence from animal experiments and from hearing impaired children suggest that asymmetric hearing during early development can reorganize the central auditory representation of the two ears with the consequence of a "stronger" representation of the better hearing ear with a "weaker" representation of the other, more poorly hearing, ear. These changes lead to a persistent aural preference for one ear, demonstrated by asymmetric speech comprehension when each ear is tested separately. Further, binaural integration is compromised as shown by reduced binaural fusion and reduced sensitivity for binaural cues. Finally, the data demonstrate a significant difference in cortical plasticity in response to juvenile monocular deprivation in the visual system and juvenile monaural deafness in the auditory system. The topic represents a unique example of translational research whereby mechanisms explored in animal models are combined with data from children to understand the clinical consequences of asymmetric hearing in early development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".