Orienting attention to auditory and visual working memory in older adults with cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cochlear implantation is a well-established method for restoring hearing sensation in individuals with severe to profound hearing loss. It significantly improves verbal communication for many users, despite substantial variability in patients' reports and performance on speech perception tests and quality-of-life outcome measures. Such variability in outcome measures remains several years after implantation and could reflect difficulties in attentional regulation. The current study assessed the ability to use a cue to guide attention internally toward visual or auditory working memory (i.e., reflective attention) in cochlear implant (CI) users. Participants completed a cognitive task called the delayed match-to-sample task in which a visual gradient was presented on a computer screen and a piano tone was presented through speakers simultaneously. A visual cue (i.e., letter A or V) instructed participants to focus attention on the item held in auditory or visual working memory. After a delay following the cue presentation, participants were presented with a probe item and indicated by pressing a button whether it matched the cued item in working memory. CI users and age-matched normal hearing adults showed comparable benefit from having an informative cue relative to an uninformative cue (i.e., letter X). Although CI users have had a history of severe deafness and experience coarse sound information, they were able to retrospectively orient their attention to an item in auditory or visual working memory. These findings suggest that CI users with at least one year of CI experience can successfully regulate attention to a level that is comparable to that of normal hearing individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".