Aural Preference in children with bilateral cochlear implants affects their perception of moving speech in noise and discrimination of binaural level cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aimed to explore how children with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs): (1) utilize spatial cues to understand speech in noise, and (2) discriminate inter-aural level differences (ILDs) in both active and passive auditory oddball tasks. Children with bilateral CIs rely on ILDs for binaural hearing, but their spatial hearing remains impaired compared to their normal-hearing peers. For the first aim, it was hypothesized that children with bilateral CIs would exhibit reduced benefits of spatial separation of speech and noise compared to normal-hearing peers, but that moving speech would improve target speech segregation. Results showed that while children with bilateral CIs benefited less from spatial separation, improvements from moving speech were only evident in quiet and not in noise. The second hypothesis predicted that hearing asymmetries would further reduce benefits of spatial separation. Indeed, hearing asymmetries predicted asymmetric speech perception in noise, particularly for moving sentences. For the second aim, it was hypothesized that attentive discrimination of ILDs would be present in children using bilateral CIs but would be reduced relative to normal hearing peers. Electrophysiological evidence revealed abnormal passive discrimination and increased effort during attentive discrimination to changes in ILDs in children with bilateral CIs. The second and third hypotheses were that asymmetric hearing/aural preference would further impair cortical discrimination of ILDs, but that attentive discrimination would improve with repetitive task learning. As expected, hearing asymmetry correlated with poorer ILD discrimination accuracy on the side of the poorer hearing/more deprived ear, consistent with an aural preference that limits benefits of bilateral CIs. However, attentive discrimination improved with task repetition in both groups, highlighting the potential role of behavioral therapy in helping children with bilateral CIs make better use of their devices to improve spatial hearing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".