Speech Perception Outcomes in Children With Single-Sided Deafness Receiving Unilateral Cochlear Implantation Compared to Bimodal Device Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) assess the effects of residual hearing in the acoustic hearing (AH) ear on speech perception outcomes with ongoing unilateral cochlear implant (CI) use in children and (2) investigate factors related to hearing history that might affect these outcomes. Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) were compared to peers with hearing loss (HL) in the AH ear contralateral to their CI. DESIGN: In total, 185 children who received a unilateral CI after limited durations of severe to profound HL {median (interquartile range [IQR]) = 1.9 (1.0 to 2.9) years} were included in this study. Of these, 43 (23.2%) had SSD and 142 (76.8%) used a contralateral hearing aid for mild to moderately-severe HL (PTA median [IQR] = 48.8 [42.5 to 63.8] dB HL, n = 39 [21.1%]) or severe to profound HL (PTA median [IQR] = 80.0 [72.1 to 85.5] dB HL, n = 103 [55.7%]) (bimodal device users). Median [IQR] age at implantation was 5.3 [3.1 to 10.6] years. Speech perception was measured in quiet (n = 182 children, average of 2.8 test sessions/child) and in co-located speech-weighted noise (+10 dB SNR) (n = 109 children, average of 2.0 test sessions/child) using word recognition tests. Spatial release of masking was measured to assess spatial separation benefits (n = 78 children, average of 1.6 tests/child). RESULTS: Speech perception in the AH ear was better in children with SSD than bimodal device users in quiet ( p < 0.001), but group differences were smaller in noise, reflecting significantly reduced scores in the SSD group in noise compared to quiet ( p < 0.001, mean [SD] difference = 27.3 [2.6] rationalized arcsine units [RAU]). Speech perception scores when using the CI-alone were similar between the three groups in quiet and noise ( p > 0.05). In quiet, speech perception was asymmetric with better scores for the AH ear for children with SSD (mean [SD] = 30.7 [29.1] RAU) and for the CI ear for bimodal device users (mean [±SD] = -5.25 [±21.7] RAU for mild to moderately-severe and -27.2 [±30.9] RAU for severe to profound HL), and the bilateral benefit was the smallest for children with SSD ( p < 0.01). In noise, however, these group differences were only significant between children with SSD and those with a severe to profound HL in the AH ear ( p = 0.02 for interaural asymmetry, p = 0.03 for bilateral benefit). In addition, asymmetry toward the AH ear decreased and bilateral benefit increased in quiet with shorter durations of deprivation ( p < 0.01) and longer CI experience ( p = 0.01), but these predictors had no effect in noise. Last, aural preference, measured by spatial release of masking, was consistent with interaural asymmetry in speech perception in quiet ( p = 0.01). Aural preference toward the AH ear was larger in the SSD than bimodal devices groups ( p < 0.01) and for children with post-lingual onset of deafness using a left rather than right CI ( p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of cochlear implantation are evident both for children with SSD and bimodal device users, and scores were not affected by the degree of residual hearing in noise. These benefits of bilateral hearing are most pronounced for children with shorter durations of deprivation in either ear.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".