Reflecting Attention to Auditory and Vsual Working Memory in Older Cochlear Implant Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between hearing loss and cognitive decline has been explored extensively in prior research, particularly in the domain of attention to memory. However, cognitive functioning after hearing restoration with a cochlear implant (CI) requires further exploration. The current study assessed the ability to orient attention to an item held in visual or auditory working memory (i.e., reflective attention) in CI users. Participants completed a delayed match- to-sample task in which a visual gradient and a piano tone were presented simultaneously. A cue (i.e., retro-cue) retrospectively oriented their attention to an item held in visual or auditory working memory. The cue was followed by a probe of which participants were asked to indicate whether the probe matched the cued item in working memory. The behavioral results indicated that CI users and age-matched normal hearing (NH) adults exhibit comparable performance in reflective attention towards a visual and auditory item in memory. Although CI users have had a history of severe deafness and experience coarse sound information, they are able to reflect attention to both visual and auditory working memory at the normal level. This reflective attention ability in CI users remains stable after one year of CI use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".