Effects of Bimodal and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use on a Nonauditory Working Memory Task: Reading Span Tests Over 2 Years Following Cochlear Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose A growing body of evidence indicates that treatment of hearing loss by provision of hearing aids leads to improvements in auditory and visual working memory. The purpose of this study was to assess whether similar working memory benefits are observed following provision of cochlear implants (CIs). Method Fifteen adults with postlingually acquired severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss completed the prospective longitudinal study. Participants were candidates for bilateral cochlear implantation with some aidable hearing in each ear. Implantation surgeries were carried out sequentially, approximately 1 year apart. Working memory was measured with the visual Reading Span Test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) at 5 time points: pre-operatively following a 6-month bilateral hearing aid trial, after 6 and 12 months of bimodal (CI plus contralateral hearing aid) listening experience following the 1st CI surgery and activation, and again after 6 and 12 months of bilateral CI listening experience following the 2nd CI surgery and activation. Results Compared to the preoperative baseline, CI listening experience yielded significant improvements in participants' ability to recall test words in the correct serial order after 12 months in the bimodal condition. Individual performance outcomes were variable, but almost all participants showed increases in task performance over the course of the study. Conclusions These results suggest that, similar to appropriate interventions with hearing aids, treatment of hearing loss with CIs can yield working memory benefits. A likely mechanism is the freeing of cognitive resources previously devoted to effortful listening.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".