The Effects of Digital Signal Processing Features on Children's Speech Recognition and Loudness Perception
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of hearing instruments set to Desired Sensation Level version 5 (DSL v5) hearing instrument prescription algorithm targets and equipped with directional microphones and digital noise reduction (DNR) on children's sentence recognition in noise performance and loudness perception in a classroom environment. METHOD: Ten children (ages 8-17 years) with stable, congenital sensorineural hearing losses participated in the study. Participants were fitted bilaterally with behind-the-ear hearing instruments set to DSL v5 prescriptive targets. Sentence recognition in noise was evaluated using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech in Noise Test (Niquette et al., 2003). Loudness perception was evaluated using a modified version of the Contour Test of Loudness Perception (Cox, Alexander, Taylor, & Gray, 1997). RESULTS: Children's sentence recognition in noise performance was significantly better when using directional microphones alone or in combination with DNR than when using omnidirectional microphones alone or in combination with DNR. Children's loudness ratings for sounds above 72 dB SPL were lowest when fitted with the DSL v5 Noise prescription combined with directional microphones. DNR use showed no effect on loudness ratings. CONCLUSION: Use of the DSL v5 Noise prescription with a directional microphone improved sentence recognition in noise performance and reduced loudness perception ratings for loud sounds relative to a typical clinical reference fitting with the DSL v5 Quiet prescription with no digital signal processing features enabled. Potential clinical strategies are discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it