Perceptions of older and younger adults who wear hearing aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate older and younger adults' perceptions of older and younger adults who wear hearing aids.Design: Participants completed two Implicit Association Tests: One with images of older adults (OA-IAT) and one with images of younger adults (YA-IAT), either wearing or not wearing hearing aids.Participants also rated age, attractiveness, and intelligence of younger and older adults pictured with or without a hearing aid.Study sample: Thirty older adults (M age ¼ 70 years, SD ¼ 4.38) and 30 younger adults (M age ¼ 23 years, SD ¼ 3.01) who reported not having hearing aids or a diagnosed hearing impairment.Results: For both IATs, older and younger participants responded faster and more accurately when images of individuals wearing hearing aids were paired with negative words in comparison to positive words.Photo ratings did not vary in relation to the presence or absence of hearing aids for either age group.Conclusion: Although the photo rating tasks indicate neutral explicit attitudes towards individuals who wear hearing aids, our interpretation of the IAT results indicates that younger and older adults may hold negative implicit attitudes towards both older and younger hearing aid users.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".