Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this study was to predict the consonant-recognition scores of adults, normal-hearing children, and children with hearing loss, using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). The SII can predict speech-perception scores by applying an audibility/intelligibility transfer function (AITF). AITFs from listeners with normal hearing may overestimate performance for listeners with hearing loss. Proficiency and/or desensitization corrections, however, have been shown to adjust for this overestimation. Age-related corrections for reduced proficiency have been proposed for use with the elderly. Children require different audibility levels from adults to achieve similar performance. However, the use of age-related proficiency factors has not been investigated in the pediatric population. It was hypothesized that age-related and hearing-related proficiency factors would be required to predict scores successfully across subject groups. We applied a 21-consonant test of speech recognition across five SNRs. Participants were 4 normal-hearing adults, 15 normal-hearing children (ages: 6.6 to 16.9 years, mean = 9.7), and 14 children with hearing loss (ages: 7.5 to 18, mean = 12.5; PTA: 22–72 dB, mean = 50 dB HL). Listeners with hearing impairment completed the TEN test to determine the presence or absence of dead regions in the cochlea. A computer-controlled, 21-consonant, nonsense-bisyllable, speech-recognition task was presented to each subject in quiet and at four SNRs for each of two talkers and two repetitions. The masker was gaussian noise, spectrally shaped to the long-term average speech spectrum of each talker. Stimuli were processed through a custom hearing aid simulator and presented monaurally through an ER3A insert earphone. Presentation stimuli were the DSL[i/o] target levels for 60-dB-SPL speech, using a loudness-normalization strategy. The audibility per listening condition was quantified using the standard SII, taking into account individual real-ear coupler differences for all children. Non-linear age-related and hearing-related proficiency factors were required to predict the scores of all participants accurately. The resulting functions described 94% to 97% of the variance in the speech-recognition scores for the three experimental groups. In summary, the SII could be used successfully to predict speech-recognition scores for both adults and children when an age- and hearing-dependent transfer function was applied. Clinical implications include the following: Children require a greater SNR than adults to achieve the same levels of speech recognition. This is consistent with the pediatric literature. Adult-derived transfer functions should not be used to predict speech-recognition scores for children from either the Articulation Index (AI) or the SII. Listeners with hearing loss require a higher SNR than listeners with normal hearing. This is consistent with the AI/SII literature.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».