Effects of Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Evidence from Speech-Evoked Cortical Potentials and Tests of Speech Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants (CI) may be compromised by delays to implantation of either ear. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of sequential bilateral CI use in children who received their first CI at young ages, using a clinical set-up. METHODS: One-channel cortical auditory evoked potentials and speech perception in quiet and noise were evoked at repeated times (0, 3, 6, 12 months of bilateral CI use) by unilateral and bilateral stimulation in 28 children with early-onset deafness. These children were unilaterally implanted before 3.69 years of age (mean ± SD of 1.98 ± 0.73 years) and received a second CI after 5.13 ± 2.37 years of unilateral CI use. Comparisons between unilaterally evoked responses were used to measure asymmetric function between the ears and comparisons between bilateral responses and each unilateral response were used to measure the bilateral benefit. RESULTS: Chronic bilateral CI promoted changes in cortical auditory responses and speech perception performance; however, large asymmetries were present between the two unilateral responses despite ongoing bilateral CI use. Persistent cortical differences between the two sides at 1 year of bilateral stimulation were predicted by increasing age at the first surgery and inter-implant delay. Larger asymmetries in speech perception occurred with longer inter-implant delays. Bilateral responses were more similar to the unilateral responses from the first rather than the second CI. CONCLUSION: These findings are consistent with the development of the aural preference syndrome and reinforce the importance of providing bilateral CIs simultaneously or sequentially with very short delays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".