MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring the Real-Ear to Coupler Difference Transfer Function With an Insert Earphone and a Hearing Instrument: Are They the Same?

2005· article· en· W1983284972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin J. Munro, Sinead Toal

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsert (composites)AcousticsHearing aidMicrophoneSignificant differenceAudiologyPhysicsMedicineMathematicsMaterials scienceSound pressureStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare the real-ear to coupler difference (RECD) measured with an insert earphone and two models of hearing instrument. Design: The RECD was obtained from one ear of 18 normal-hearing subjects by subtracting the 2-cc coupler (HA1 and HA2) response from a real-ear aided response, using a conventional probe-tube microphone system. The measurements were made with a conventional ER-3A earphone and two models of behind-the-ear hearing instrument (Unitron US80, Unitron, Kitchener, Canada; and Widex Diva, Widex, Vaerloese, Denmark). Results: The procedures were very reliable, with mean differences on retest of less than 1 dB. There were statistically significant differences between the mean RECDs obtained using an insert earphone compared with those obtained with each hearing instrument (p < 0.05). The differences were greatest when using the HA2 2-cc coupler. For example, the maximum difference in mean RECD between the insert earphone and the Widex Diva was 6 dB and 11 dB when using the HA1 and the HA2 2-cc coupler, respectively. Conclusions: The RECD is dependent on the acoustic impedance of the sound source, the coupling system, and the coupler and ear. The acoustic impedance may be different for an insert earphone and a given hearing instrument. Therefore, the RECD measured with an insert earphone may not always accurately represent the difference in performance of a hearing instrument measured in the real ear and the 2-cc coupler. The real-ear-to-coupler difference (RECD) is normally measured using an insert earphone. The assumption is that the RECD can be applied to a coupler measurement performed with a hearing instrument in order to derive real-ear SPL. The present study compared the RECD obtained with examples of hearing instruments and the ER-3A insert earphone. The results show that the RECD is dependent on the measurement transducer. The SPL developed in a coupler or an ear canal depends on the acoustic impedance of the cavity, the coupling system, and the sound source. Therefore, the RECD measured with an insert earphone may not always accurately represent the difference in performance of a hearing instrument in the real ear and the 2-cc coupler.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207