Evaluating the use of a balance prosthesis during balance perturbations in children and young adults with cochleovestibular dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study objectives were to: (1) quantify stability in children and young adults using cochlear implants with concurrent cochleovestibular dysfunction (CI-V) during balance perturbations and (2) to assess effects of an auditory head-referencing device (BalanCI) on their stability. The BalanCI provides auditory feedback via cochlear implants to cue posture and potentially avoid falling in children with CI-V. It was hypothesized that children and young adults with CI-V respond with larger movements to floor perturbations than typically-developing peers (controls) and that BalanCI use decreases these movements. Motion in response to treadmill perturbations was captured by markers on the head, torso, and feet in eight CI-V and 15 control participants. Stability (area under the curve of motion displacement) and peak displacement latencies were measured. The CI-V group demonstrated less stability and slower responses than the control group during medium and large backwards perturbations (p's < 0.01). In the CI-V group, BalanCI use improved stability during large backwards perturbations (p < 0.001), but worsened stability during large sideways perturbations (p's < 0.001). Children and young adults with CI-V move more to remain upright during perturbations than typically-developing peers. The BalanCI has potential to aid physical/vestibular therapy in children with CIs who have poor balance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".