Clear Speech for Adults with a Hearing Loss: Does Intervention with Communication Partners Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spouses of persons with hearing loss served as talkers to examine the benefits of clear speech intervention. One talker received intervention on clear speech. A second talker was simply instructed to speak clearly. Each talker was recorded reading sentences in three conditions: conversational speech, clear speech one week postintervention, and clear speech one month postintervention. Speech acoustic measures were obtained. Then the sentences were presented to subjects with normal hearing and subjects with hearing loss to measure speech recognition. Results showed that simply asking a talker to speak clearly was effective in eliciting clear speech; however, providing intervention yielded changes in more speech parameters, more stable changes, and better speech recognition. When listening to the talker who received intervention, subjects with hearing loss achieved the same performance as subjects with normal hearing. However, they performed worse than subjects with normal hearing when listening to the talker who received clear speech instructions only. Individuals with hearing loss would receive speech recognition benefits if their partners were provided with clear speech intervention. Se utilizaron cónyuges de personas con hipoacusia como interlocutores para examinar los beneficios de una intervención con lenguaje claro. Un interlocutor recibía instrucción sobre lenguaje claro. Un segundo interlocutor se instruía simplemente para hablar claro. Cada interlocutor fue grabado leyendo frases en tres condiciones: lenguaje de conversación, lenguaje claro una semana después de la intervención, y lenguaje claro un mes después de la intervención. Se obtuvieron mediciones acústicas de dichos mensajes lingüísticos. Luego, las frases se presentaron a sujetos con audición normal y con hipoacusia para medir su reconocimiento del lenguaje. Los resultados mostraron que el pedir simplemente a un interlocutor que hablara más claramente era efectivo en generar un lenguaje más claro; sin embargo, el brindar instrucción concedió cambios en más parámetros del habla, cambios más estables y mejor reconocimiento del lenguaje. Cuando escuchaban a un interlocutor que había recibido instrucción, los sujetos con hipoacusia obtenían el mismo rendimiento que los sujetos con audición normal. Sin embargo, ellos rindieron peor que los sujetos con audición normal cuando escucharon a un interlocutor que simplemente había recibido instrucciones de hablar un poco más claro. Los individuos con alteraciones auditivas obtenían beneficios en el reconocimiento del lenguaje si sus interlocutores habían sido instruidos para generar un lenguaje más claro.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".