Systematic Evaluation of the Relationship between Physical and Psychoacoustical Measurements of Hearing Protectors’ Attenuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most commonly used methods to measure hearing protectors attenuation can be divided into two categories: psychoacoustical (subjective) and physical (objective) methods. In order to better understand the relationship between these methods, this article presents various factors relating attenuation values obtained with these methods through a series of tests. Experiments on human subjects were carried out where the subjects were instrumented on both ears with miniature microphones outside and underneath the protector. The subjects were then asked to go through a series of hearing threshold measurements (psychoacoustical method) followed by microphone sound recordings using high-level diffuse field broadband noises (physical method). The proposed test protocol allowed obtaining various factors relating the test methods as well as attenuation values and ratings for different protection conditions (open ear, earmuffs, earplugs, and dual protection). Results are presented for three models of passive earmuffs, three models of earplugs and all their combinations as dual hearing protectors. The validity and the relative importance of various terms used to correct the physical attenuation values when comparing with psychoacoustical attenuation values are examined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".