MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029913457 · doi:10.7205/milmed-d-13-00556

Strategies to Combat Auditory Overload During Vehicular Command and Control

2014· article· en· W2029913457 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon M. Abel, Geoffrey Ho, Ann Nakashima, Ingrid Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadsetDichotic listeningQUIETAudiologyLoudspeakerNoise (video)Task (project management)Speech recognitionLaptopModalitiesSpeech perceptionComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyAcousticsPerceptionEngineeringTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategies to combat auditory overload were studied. Normal-hearing males were tested in a sound isolated room in a mock-up of a military land vehicle. Two tasks were presented concurrently, in quiet and vehicle noise. For Task 1 dichotic phrases were delivered over a communications headset. Participants encoded only those beginning with a preassigned call sign (Baron or Charlie). For Task 2, they agreed or disagreed with simple equations presented either over loudspeakers, as text on the laptop monitor, in both the audio and the visual modalities, or not at all. Accuracy was significantly better by 20% on Task 2 when the equations were presented visually or audiovisually. Scores were at least 78% correct for dichotic phrases presented over the headset, with a right ear advantage of 7%, given the 5 dB speech-to-noise ratio. The left ear disadvantage was particularly apparent in noise, where the interaural difference was 12%. Relatively lower scores in the left ear, in noise, were observed for phrases beginning with Charlie. These findings underscore the benefit of delivering higher priority communications to the dominant ear, the importance of selecting speech sounds that are resilient to noise masking, and the advantage of using text in cases of degraded audio.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207