A comparison of three approaches to verifying aided Baha output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
William E. Hodgetts*ab, Bo E.V. Håkanssonc, Paul Haglera & Sigfrid Solida Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canadab Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine (iRSM), Edmonton, Canadac Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, Swedend House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, USABill Hodgetts, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, 2-70 Corbett Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2G4. E-mail: bill.hodgetts@ualberta.ca AbstractObjective: The objective of the present study was to compare three methods of estimating the audibility of aided speech using the Baha.Subjects: 23 Adult Baha users with primarily bilateral conductive hearing loss were recruited from the Bone Conduction Amplification Program at the Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Methods: A test Baha was set to each subject's preferred listening level. The same Baha was used to assess the audibility of the long-term average speech spectrum (LTASS) for each of the following three approaches: 1) Aided soundfield thresholds, 2) Real Ear SPL, and 3) Real Head Acceleration Level. Results: Significant differences were discovered between the three approaches. Aided soundfield thresholds consistently over-estimated the sensation level of aided speech. The Real Ear SPL approach provided reasonable estimates in the mid-frequencies. However, low- and high-frequency estimates for the Real Ear approach have significant limitations.Conclusions: The Real Head Acceleration Level appears to be the most accurate method of determining aided audibility with the Baha.SumarioEl objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar tres métodos de estimación del nivel de sensación (audibilidad del LTASS) del lenguaje amplificado usando el Baha. Se reclutaron 23 usuarios adultos del Baha, primariamente con hipoacusia conductiva bilateral, del Programa de Amplificación por Conducción Ósea del Instituto de Ciencias Reconstructivas en Medicina en Edmonton, Alberta, Canadá. Un Baha de prueba fue colocado al nivel preferido de escucha de cada sujeto. El mismo Baha fue utilizado para evaluar la audibilidad del espectro promediado a largo plazo de lenguaje (LTASS) para cada uno de los siguientes tres enfoques: 1) Umbrales amplificados en campo sonoro, SPL en Oído-Real, y el Nivel Real de Aceleración de la Cabeza. Se descubrieron diferencias significativas entre los tres enfoques. Los umbrales amplificados en campo sonoro sobre-estimaron consistentemente el nivel de sensación del lenguaje amplificado. El enfoque de SPL en Oído-Real proporcionó estimados razonables en las frecuencias medias. Sin embargo, los estimados para frecuencias bajas y altas para el enfoque de Oído-Real tuvieron limitaciones significativas. El Nivel Real de Aceleración de la Cabeza parece ser el método más exacto para determinar la audibilidad amplificada del Baha.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".