Lower mental fatigue and better functional listening are associated with better communication outcomes in children with mild bilateral hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To improve evidence for clinical decision-making regarding amplification for children with mild bilateral hearing loss (MBHL). We aimed to: (i) assess whether diagnosis age, unaided access to speech, hearing loss type (sensorineural/conductive) or amplification influenced auditory (functional listening, listening fatigue) and non-auditory outcomes (communication, psychosocial behaviour, attention), and (ii) evaluate whether auditory outcomes were associated with non-auditory outcomes. DESIGN: Outcomes were assessed using age-appropriate, validated questionnaires completed by carers. Listening-related fatigue and attention abilities were gathered only in older children (>5 years). STUDY SAMPLE: 63 children <12 years of age. RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed limited predictability of communication and psychosocial outcomes in all children. Delayed functional listening was evident in aided relative to unaided children <5 years, and in those over 5, listening-related mental fatigue was greater in aided than unaided children. Further, increased mental, but not physical fatigue, was associated with worse communication and psychosocial outcomes. Increased mental and physical fatigue were associated with worse attention abilities. Better functional listening was associated with better communication and attention, but not psychosocial behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Unaided speech access, hearing loss type, and/or diagnosis age appear insufficient to predict developmental outcomes. Children with more perceived listening difficulties may pursue amplification. Monitoring listening-related fatigue and functional listening could help identify children needing further support.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".