Rhythmic Abilities of Children With Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Children with hearing loss (HL), in spite of early cochlear implantation, often struggle considerably with language acquisition. Previous research has shown a benefit of rhythmic training on linguistic skills in children with HL, suggesting that improving rhythmic capacities could help attenuating language difficulties. However, little is known about general rhythmic skills of children with HL and how they relate to speech perception. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to assess the abilities of children with HL in different rhythmic sensorimotor synchronization tasks compared to a normal-hearing control group and (2) to investigate a possible relation between sensorimotor synchronization abilities and speech perception abilities in children with HL. DESIGN: A battery of sensorimotor synchronization tests with stimuli of varying acoustic and temporal complexity was used: a metronome, different musical excerpts, and complex rhythmic patterns. Synchronization abilities were assessed in 32 children (aged from 5 to 10 years) with a severe to profound HL mainly fitted with one or two cochlear implants (n = 28) or with hearing aids (n = 4). Working memory and sentence repetition abilities were also assessed. Performance was compared to an age-matched control group of 24 children with normal hearing. The comparison took into account variability in working memory capacities. For children with HL only, we computed linear regressions on speech, sensorimotor synchronization, and working memory abilities, including device-related variables such as onset of device use, type of device, and duration of use. RESULTS: Compared to the normal-hearing group, children with HL performed poorly in all sensorimotor synchronization tasks, but the effect size was greater for complex as compared to simple stimuli. Group differences in working memory did not explain this result. Linear regression analysis revealed that working memory, synchronization to complex rhythms performances, age, and duration of device use predicted the number of correct syllables produced in a sentence repetition task. CONCLUSION: Despite early cochlear implantation or hearing aid use, hearing impairment affects the quality of temporal processing of acoustic stimuli in congenitally deaf children. This deficit seems to be more severe with stimuli of increasing rhythmic complexity highlighting a difficulty in structuring sounds according to a temporal hierarchy.
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".