MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029941705 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e3181734a02

Children’s Speech Recognition Scores: The Speech Intelligibility Index and Proficiency Factors for Age and Hearing Level

2008· article· en· W2029941705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJudith Jane Mason and Harold Stannett Williams Memorial Foundation
KeywordsAudiologyHearing lossPsychologyIntelligibility (philosophy)ConsonantMedicineSpeech recognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: The objective of this study was to predict consonant recognition scores of adults, children, and children with hearing impairment, using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). It was hypothesized that an adult-derived transfer function would be insufficient to predict the scores for children, and that transfer functions for normally hearing listeners would be insufficient to predict scores for children with hearing impairment. Proficiency corrections for age and hearing loss were explored. Design: A 21-consonant test of speech recognition was applied across five signal to noise ratios in a forced choice procedure. Four adults (aged 27–32 yrs), 15 children with normal hearing (aged 6.6–16.9 yrs), and 14 children with mild to severe hearing loss (aged 7.5–18 yrs) participated. The SII was computed for each listener and each test condition using the one-third octave band method. Transfer functions were fitted to the data of each group. Results: The adult-derived transfer function over-predicted the children’s scores. Significant increases in prediction accuracy were obtained when the effects of age and hearing loss were incorporated into the transfer function as proficiency factors. Conclusions: The SII could successfully be used to predict speech recognition scores for both adults and children, once the effects of age and hearing loss were included in the development of a transfer function. Specific proficiency factors developed here may not generalize to other data sets. Nonetheless, the results shed light on factors to consider when using the SII to predict children’s speech recognition scores. The objective of this study was to predict consonant recognition scores of adults and children with/without hearing impairment. A consonant recognition test was administered across signal to noise ratios. Three groups of listeners participated: adults and children with normal hearing, and children with hearing loss. The Speech Intelligibility Index was computed for each listener and test condition, and transfer functions were fitted to the data of each group. The adult-derived transfer function over-predicted the children's scores. Significant increases in prediction accuracy were obtained when the effects of age and hearing loss were incorporated into the transfer function as proficiency factors.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.158 · 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