“Aural Patching” After Bilateral Cochlear Implantation Is Challenging for Children With Prior Long-Term Unilateral Implant Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of "aural patching" as a strategy to potentially reduce the known persistence of aural preference in children receiving bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) with long inter-implant delays by removing the first device to increase stimulation to the second implanted side. DESIGN: Children/adolescents who received a second CI at 12.8 ± 3.5 years of age after 9.4 ± 2.9 years of unilateral CI use were asked to remove their first CI for regular periods daily (aural patching). Their compliance was monitored, and asymmetries in speech perception were measured at the end of the study period. RESULTS: Partial adherence to aural patching over the first few months of bilateral hearing use markedly declined with time. As expected, the group demonstrated asymmetries in speech perception that were not significantly affected by the limited aural patching. CONCLUSIONS: The aural patching protocol was a challenge to maintain for most children and families studied, reflecting both the expected aural preference for the first implanted ear and their challenges to reverse it.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".