Brain Morphological Modifications in Congenital and Acquired Auditory Deprivation: A Systematic Review and Coordinate-Based Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroplasticity following deafness has been widely demonstrated in both humans and animals, but the anatomical substrate of these changes is not yet clear in human brain. However, it is of high importance since hearing loss is a growing problem due to aging population. Moreover, knowing these brain changes could help to understand some disappointing results with cochlear implant, and therefore could improve hearing rehabilitation. A systematic review and a coordinate-based meta-analysis were realized about the morphological brain changes highlighted by MRI in severe to profound hearing loss, congenital and acquired before or after language onset. 25 papers were included in our review, concerning more than 400 deaf subjects, most of them presenting prelingual deafness. The most consistent finding is a volumetric decrease in gray matter around bilateral auditory cortex. This change was confirmed by the coordinate-based meta-analysis which shows three converging clusters in this region. The visual areas of deaf children is also significantly impacted, with a decrease of the volume of both gray and white matters. Finally, deafness is responsible of a gray matter increase within the cerebellum, especially at the right side. These results are largely discussed and compared with those from deaf animal models and blind humans, which demonstrate for example a much more consistent gray matter decrease along their respective primary sensory pathway. In human deafness, a lot of other factors than deafness could interact on the brain plasticity. One of the most important is the use of sign language and its age of acquisition, which induce among others changes within the hand motor region and the visual cortex. But other confounding factors exist which have been too little considered in the current literature, such as the etiology of the hearing impairment, the speech-reading ability, the hearing aid use, the frequent associated vestibular dysfunction or neurocognitive impairment. Another important weakness highlighted by this review concern the lack of papers about postlingual deafness, whereas it represents most of the deaf population. Further studies are needed to better understand these issues, and finally try to improve deafness rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".