Comparison of Linear Gain and Wide Dynamic Range Compression Hearing Aid Circuits II: Aided Loudness Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to test the theoretical advantages of a single-channel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) circuit fitted using the DSL method for increased dynamic range and normalized loudness growth. DESIGN: Ten adolescents and young adults with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were fitted monaurally with the Siemens Viva 2 Pro behind-the-ear instrument set to DSL 4.0 targets for both linear gain and WDRC processing. Threshold, upper limit of comfort and loudness growth were measured in the unaided, linear gain and WDRC conditions for warble tones, environmental sounds and speech. Twelve adult listeners with normal hearing also were tested monaurally in the unaided condition to provide normative data for comparison purposes. RESULTS: The WDRC hearing aid provided a greater input dynamic range than the linear circuit for all stimuli. The dynamic range was normalized for more subjects with the WDRC than the linear hearing aid. In addition, exponential loudness growth functions fitted to the loudness growth data showed that, on average, loudness growth was more normalized with the WDRC hearing aid fitted to DSL[i/o] targets than the linear hearing aid fitted to DSL[i/o] targets. CONCLUSIONS: WDRC processing, fitted using the DSL[i/o] method, has potential applications in hearing aid fittings for listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss because it provides an audible, comfortable and tolerable amplified signal across a wider range of inputs than linear gain processing, without the need for volume control adjustments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".