Cochlear implant wear time and speech perception outcomes in adults: recommendation for minimum daily wear time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Variability in cochlear implant (CI) performance has traditionally been linked to pre-operative factors. This study examined the impact of daily CI wear time on post-operative performance in adult recipients.Design and Study Sample A retrospective analysis was conducted on 158 adult CI users comparing pre- and post-operative factors contributing to performance after one year of use. Participants were divided into post hoc groups for analysis: those wearing their CI less than 10 hours per day (n = 46) and those wearing it 10 or more hours per day (n = 112).Results Daily CI wear time was correlated with speech perception scores (CNC Words, r = 0.44, AzBio, r = 0.37). Regression analyses found that average wear time and age significantly predicted AzBio scores (R2 = 0.21) while wear time and duration of hearing loss predicted CNC Scores (R2 = 0.28).Conclusion Average daily CI wear time, age at implantation and duration of hearing loss are reliable predictors of speech perception scores. Individuals wearing their CI for at least 10 hours per day scored significantly higher than those wearing it less than 10 hours per day. Data suggest earliest possible implantation and CI use of at least 10 hours per day is beneficial.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".