A Study of the Combined Use of a Hearing Aid and Tactual Aid in an Adult with Profound Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am pleased to offer readers four articles that, once again, demonstrate The Volta Review's commitment to current research in the field of deafness.This issue contains studies that examine reading skills, story retelling patterns, performance of combined acoustical and tactual stimulation and the experiences of parents of children who use an Auditory-Verbal approach.Two of the four articles explore the performance of children with cochlear implants, and the remaining two investigate the utility of different assistive devices and reading patterns of children with hearing loss.Dillon and Pisoni of Haskins Laboratories and Indiana University, respectively, examine the reading skills of children with cochlear implants with regard to repetition of nonwords.A cohort of 76 children, who have been cochlear implant users since approximately age 3, was included in this study.Transcriptions of their repetitions of 20 non-word stimuli were used to determine the relationship between this task and reading ability.Further analysis of demographic variables was performed to determine if any correlations affected outcomes.The researcher's findings are of great interest to professionals who monitor academic progress of children with cochlear implants.Issues related to reading and literacy development also are undertaken by Robertson, Dow and Hainzinger of Denison University and Midwestern University in their study of story retelling patterns of children with and without hearing loss.Present popular culture supports the paradigm of reading aloud early and consistently to children in an effort to reinforce literacy.The authors of this study explored this phenomenon in a group of 10 3-to 6-year-old children with hearing loss and a comparison group of 11 3-to 5-year-old hearing children.Transcriptions of the story retelling abilities of the two groups showed no significant differences in word and phrase recall.Implications for using this technique for early reading instruction are noted.The authors did find significant differences for a variety of other factors that may have greater implications for approaches that should be used with children who have hearing loss.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".