Modeling the Relationship Between Listener Factors and Envelope Fidelity: A Pooled Analysis Spanning a Decade
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: There is a large variability in speech intelligibility with hearing aids. This variability remains despite the current clinical approaches that provide individualized frequency-specific adjustments to gain in hearing aids. Much of this variability documented in the literature may also be due to differences across studies in terms of outcome measures, test conditions, etc. The objective of this study was to model sources of individual variability in speech intelligibility with hearing aids, in a pooled analysis across four distinct studies that used common methodologies and outcome measures. DESIGN: Deidentified data from 80 unique listeners with bilateral mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss and aged 49 to 92 years were pooled from four published studies. A hierarchical Beta-Binomial (generalized linear mixed-effects) model was implemented to estimate the probability of correct word recognition in the pooled data using a Bayesian framework. Across studies, word recognition was measured for low-context sentences, in multi-talker babble, for a range of signal to noise ratios. Signals were processed through a hearing aid simulator or a wearable device and were customized to the listener's audiogram. Individual studies involved systematic manipulations of wide dynamic range compression, frequency lowering, or microphone directionality. Individual working memory ability was measured using the reading span test. A well-established auditory metric was used to quantify cumulative envelope fidelity (cepstral correlation) from background noise and the hearing aid processing for each listener. RESULTS: The model showed a strong relationship between speech intelligibility and envelope fidelity, confirming previous research findings that higher envelope fidelity was associated with better speech intelligibility. Among the sources of individual variability, working memory had a significant effect on the relationship between speech intelligibility and envelope fidelity. Listeners with higher working memory had significantly better word recognition than those with lower working memory, especially when envelope fidelity was worse. In addition, listeners with lower working memory had better word recognition as envelope fidelity increased. Age and degree of hearing loss (four-frequency pure-tone average) did not have a significant effect on the relationship between speech intelligibility and envelope fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the pooled dataset identified sources of individual variability in aided speech intelligibility, while also overcoming limitations of smaller sample sizes in prior research. The model supported the hypothesis that speech intelligibility is affected by the cumulative envelope fidelity arising from a combination of background noise and hearing aid processing. The study findings indicate that individual variability in speech intelligibility with hearing aid processing is related to working memory after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss. The study highlights the need for individualized treatment of hearing loss beyond the pure tone audiogram. Auditory metrics such as the envelope fidelity metric used in the study may be useful tools in clinical decision-making.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 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 ».