Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109381›Full record

ArticleScience, technology & human values2025

Habilitation beyond the Bionic Metaphor: Producing Deafnesses of the Future.

Stephanie Lloyd, Chani Bonventre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science, technology & human values, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephanie LloydUniversité Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6099-376X
Chani BonventreUniversité Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4507-0489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we travel back to the early days of experimental use of cochlear implants (CIs) in the 1970s, when unsettled expectations of the device and broad investigations of its effects began to settle and center on speech outcomes. We describe how this attention to speech outcomes coalesced into specific understandings of what CIs do, and how implicit or explicit understandings of CIs as bionic devices that normalize hearing influenced research on and expectations of CIs into the present. We conclude that accumulated evidence about what is known and unknown about experiences and materialities with CIs calls for a decisive break from the metaphor of the bionic ear. This shift would create a space to reconsider the "deafness of history and the present," as well as experiences of brain-computer interfaces that are inclusive of nonnormative life. This article is based on fieldwork in research and clinical facilities in Australia, Canada, and the United States. It included forty-three interviews with clinical experts and leading researchers in the fields of audiology, psychoacoustics, and neuroscience, among them scientists involved in the development and commercialization of one of the first CIs.

Indexed as

anthropologybrain–computer interfacecochlear implantsdeafnesssensoria

Identifiers

PMID40109381
PMCPMC11913592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.