Music Perception, Appreciation, and Participation in Postlingually Deafened Adults and Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic literature review explored the relationship between hearing loss, the use of hearing aids or cochlear implants, and late-deafened adults' perception and appreciation of, and participation in, music. To identify articles, four databases were searched, MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and American Psychological Association (APA) PsycINFO, using terms associated with hearing loss, hearing aids, cochlear implants, music perception, appreciation, or participation. The included studies were empirical, written in English, peer reviewed, used any research method, had no date restrictions, and involved late-deafened adults. A formal risk of bias evaluation was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools. A double-blind review of 2595 articles was completed in June 2023, with a total of 131 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Typically, the reviewed articles focused on music perception testing. The studies included more than 6900 adult participants with hearing loss. Data relating to the review question were extracted and thematically coded. Only 18 studies reported on music experiences for adults who had hearing loss with or without hearing aids. The remaining 113 articles related to cochlear implant users, and 91 of these focused primarily on identification of musical structural components. The reviewed articles consistently established that hearing loss and hearing devices have a substantial, generally negative, impact on music perception. The psychosocial and emotional need for music was mostly overlooked, with few studies focusing on music appreciation, enjoyment, social connectedness, or participation. Further research is needed to understand the broader context of how hearing loss and hearing devices impact personal experiences including mental and physical well-being and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".