MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415471778 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001722

Patterns of Cochlear Implant Use and Speech Exposure in Children With Single-Sided Deafness Compared to Bimodal Devices in the Post-Pandemic Period

2025· article· en· W4415471778 on OpenAlexaff
Harrison Gao, Hanne Bartels, Emily Wener, Jaina Negandhi, Blake C. Papsin, Sharon L. Cushing, Karen A. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantHearing lossCochlear implantationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Speech perceptionPandemic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated whether Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related decreases in device use and speech exposure in children with unilateral cochlear implants (CIs) persisted post-pandemic. It was hypothesized that CI use is lower in children with single-sided deafness (SSD) than in children using bimodal devices and that speech exposure has recovered to pre-pandemic levels. DESIGN: Datalogs (n = 608) from children with unilateral CIs (n = 111) and good hearing in their non-implanted ear (unaided pure tone average <60 dB) were analyzed across the pre-pandemic, peri-pandemic (during the pandemic), and post-pandemic periods. Participants were separated into children with single-sided deafness using a CI (SSD-CI group, n = 70), and children using a CI and contralateral hearing aid (bimodal devices group, n = 41). They were further divided by age at the start of the pandemic (preschool-aged and school-aged). Datalogs were collected from October 1, 2013 to April 1, 2024, and included daily CI use, speech duration, and speech-in-noise sounds captured by the CI. RESULTS: CI use was lower in the SSD-CI group (mean ± SD = 5.78 ± 3.06 hours/day) than in the bimodal devices group (7.24 ± 3.75 hours/day, p = 0.013). In addition, of 17 children lost to follow-up, 14 were in the SSD-CI group. Preschool-aged children showed a steeper increase in CI use over time from CI activation in the bimodal devices group (slope ± SE = 0.96 ± 0.14 hours/day per year) than the SSD-CI group (0.15 ± 0.19 hours/day per year, p < 0.001). CI use declined more rapidly over time in school-aged children in the SSD-CI group (-0.63 ± 0.09 hours/day per year) compared to the bimodal devices group (-0.07 ± 0.09 hours/day per year, p < 0.001). Speech exposure was similar in the SSD-CI (3.13 ± 1.83 hours/day) and bimodal devices (3.82 ± 2.11 hours/day) groups ( p = 0.08). In preschool-aged children, speech exposure increased from the pre-pandemic (3.11 ± 1.44 hours/day) to the peri-pandemic (3.51 ± 2.21 hours/day, p = 0.011) and post-pandemic period (4.53 ± 1.84 hours/day, p < 0.001) in line with increased daily CI use. In school-aged children, speech exposure decreased from the pre-pandemic (3.38 ± 1.76 hours/day) to the peri-pandemic period (2.94 ± 2.16 hours/day, p = 0.002), remaining low post-pandemic (2.91 ± 2.45 hours/day, p = 0.69). The proportion of speech exposure measured by the CI decreased from the pre-pandemic period (52.5% ± 12.2%, p = 0.99) to the peri-pandemic period (44.7% ± 16.1%, p = 0.008) and returned to pre-pandemic levels post-pandemic (51.9% ± 17.3%, p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Daily CI use varies widely in children with good residual hearing in their non-implanted ear and is at greater risk for decline over time in the SSD-CI group compared to the bimodal device users. Reduced CI use in school-aged children with SSD leads to decreased hours of speech exposure through the CI. The percentage of speech exposure logged by the CI confirms that speech access declined during the pandemic but reveals an encouraging return to pre-pandemic levels after restrictions were lifted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207