Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports intelligibility judgments and real-life functional performance of 48 children in a double-blind, cross-over trial comparing the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions. Intelligibility judgments were obtained by using a paired-comparisons procedure with audiovisual stimuli. Functional performance of children during two eight-week periods, each with hearing aids adjusted to one prescription, was assessed by parents and teachers (PEACH and TEACH) and by children's self reports (SELF). Consistently across reports, performance was significantly better in quiet than in noise. On average, better performance in noise (a higher Noise subscale score) was associated with NAL-NL1 than with DSL v.4.1, both for the PEACH and the SELF. This difference was significant for the SELF in Australia. Intelligibility judgments revealed preferences that were equally split between prescriptions in both countries, on average. In the Australian sample, intelligibility judgments agreed with the questionnaire ratings and with parents’ ratings. An increase in preference for NAL was significantly associated with lesser hearing loss. The effect was not significant in the Canadian sample.SumarioEste trabajo reporta juicios de inteligibilidad y rendimiento funcional en la vida real de 48 niños, en un estudio doble ciego cruzado para comparar las prescripciones NAL-NL1 y DSL v.4.1. Los juicios de inteligibilidad se obtuvieron usando comparaciones por pares con estímulos audio-visu-ales. El rendimiento funcional de los niños durante dos perío-dos de ocho semanas, con auxiliares auditivos ajustados a una de las prescripciones, fue evaluado por padres (PEACH) y maestros (TEACH) y por auto-reportes de los niños (SELF). Consistentemente en los reportes, el rendimiento fue signifi-cativamente mejor en silencio que en ruido. En promedio, el mejor rendimiento en ruido (puntuación de una mayor subes-cala de ruido) se asoció con NAL-NL 1 en comparación con DSL v.4.1, ambos con PEACH y SELF. Esta diferencia fue significativa para SELF en Australia. Los juicios de inteligi-bilidad revelaron preferencias que se dividieron igualmente en promedio, entre las prescripciones en ambos países. En la muestra de Australia, los juicios de inteligibilidad estuvieron de acuerdo con las puntuaciones de cuestionarios y con las de los padres. Un aumento en la preferencia por el NAL se aso-ció significativamente con menor pérdida auditiva. El efecto no fue significativo en la muestra de Canadá.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".