Identity change of late-deafened adults after receiving cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this research was to understand how adults reconceptualise their identity when experiencing hearing loss as an adult, and how their identity might change with a cochlear implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an online survey administered through cochlear implant social media groups, with follow-up semi-structured interviews, participants answered questions about their hearing loss and cochlear implant experiences. Forty-four people answered the survey and 16 participated in an in-depth interview. All were older than 18 years, once had heard, became deafened in adulthood and had at least one cochlear implant. RESULTS: The decision to have a cochlear implant often meant acknowledging they were no longer a hearing person. After having an implant four themes emerged. (1) Some participants maintained a hearing identity through hearing loss and after cochlear implantation, while others returned to their hearing identity. (2) Others acknowledged a confused identity, neither deaf nor hearing. In unexpected findings, (3) during the progression of hearing loss, some participants had identified as hearing but could not hear, however after implantation, they became deaf people who could hear. (4) Furthermore, after implantation, some participants identified as disabled when they had not done so when less able to hear. CONCLUSION: Given the prevalence of hearing loss in later life, it is important to understand the way these adults understand their identity through the progression of hearing loss and after becoming cochlear implant recipients. The belief people have of themselves impacts healthcare choices and affects their commitment to ongoing 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".