Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training Workshop: Current Understanding of Hearing Loss and Emotion Perception and Priorities for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of how hearing loss and hearing rehabilitation affect patients' momentary emotional experiences is one that has received little attention but has considerable potential to affect patients' psychosocial function. This article is a product from the Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training workshop, which was convened to develop a consensus document describing research on emotion perception relevant for hearing research. This article outlines conceptual frameworks for the investigation of emotion in hearing research; available subjective, objective, neurophysiologic, and peripheral physiologic data acquisition research methods; the effects of age and hearing loss on emotion perception; potential rehabilitation strategies; priorities for future research; and implications for clinical audiologic rehabilitation. More broadly, this article aims to increase awareness about emotion perception research in audiology and to stimulate additional research on the topic.
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 | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".