Functional Consequences of Poor Binaural Hearing in Development: Evidence From Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss and Children Receiving Bilateral Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor binaural hearing in children was hypothesized to contribute to related cognitive and academic deficits. Children with unilateral hearing have normal hearing in one ear but no access to binaural cues. Their cognitive and academic deficits could be unique from children receiving bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) at young ages who have poor access to spectral cues and impaired binaural sensitivity. Both groups are at risk for vestibular/balance deficits which could further contribute to memory and learning challenges. Eighty-eight children (43 male:45 female, aged 9.89 ± 3.40 years), grouped by unilateral hearing loss ( n = 20), bilateral CI ( n = 32), and typically developing ( n = 36), completed a battery of sensory, cognitive, and academic tests. Analyses revealed that children in both hearing loss groups had significantly poorer skills (accounting for age) on most tests than their normal hearing peers. Children with unilateral hearing loss had more asymmetric speech perception than children with bilateral CIs ( p < .0001) but balance and language deficits ( p = .0004, p < .0001, respectively) were similar in the two hearing loss groups ( p > .05). Visuospatial memory deficits occurred in both hearing loss groups ( p = .02) but more consistently across tests in children with unilateral hearing loss. Verbal memory was not significantly different than normal ( p > .05). Principal component analyses revealed deficits in a main cluster of visuospatial memory, oral language, mathematics, and reading measures (explaining 46.8% data variability). The remaining components revealed clusters of self-reported hearing, balance and vestibular function, and speech perception deficits. The findings indicate significant developmental impacts of poor binaural hearing in children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".