Optimum reverberation time for speech intelligibility in classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work addresses the topical question of the optimum reverberation time (RT) for speech intelligibility in classrooms. Existing literature is reviewed and is found to be inconsistent. Experimental methods generally predict zero optimum RT, while theoretical methods predict nonzero values. These differences are discussed; they appear to stem from different treatments of the background noise. Assuming diffuse-field theory, a theoretical model to predict optimum RT was developed from a previously proposed model [S. R. Bistafa and J. S. Bradley, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 861–875 (2000)]. It incorporates noise in a physically realistic way and predicts nonzero optimum RTs. Subsequently, to reduce reliance on diffuse-field theory, the model was modified using empirical methods to predict speech level and reverberation times in classrooms [M. R. Hodgson, J. Build. Acoust. (in press, 2001)]. Again, nonzero optimum RTs were predicted. The prediction models and results are presented, practical conclusions are drawn, and suggestions for further work are made.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".