MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068464287 · doi:10.1121/1.4708382

Speech intelligibility in military noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners using level-dependent tactical hearing protectors

2012· article· en· W2068464287 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Giguère, Chantal Laroche, Véronique Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningAudiologyIntelligibility (philosophy)AcousticsHearing protectionAudiogramComputer scienceHearing lossPsychologyMedicineCommunicationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of two tactical headsets with level-dependent hearing protection capabilities on face-to-face speech intelligibility in military noise were investigated. Devices were the Nacre QuietPro and the Peltor Powercom Plus. Noises recorded from light-artillery vehicles in the Canadian Forces were reproduced in a simulation room at 80-95 dBA. Over 45 subjects covering a wide range of hearing profiles were tested using sentences from the Hearing-In-Noise Test. When used as passive devices with the electronics powered off, the devices performed as expected from conventional protectors having the same amount of attenuation. In this mode, there were large performance differences among subject groups in terms of the effects of wearing the devices compared to unprotected listening. When used in active talk-through (or surround) mode, both devices showed large intelligibility benefits over the passive mode and demonstrated a level of performance often exceeding that in unprotected listening. The subject group with the most impaired hearing benefitted the most from the active mode. The findings indicate that the current technology of high-end tactical headsets could provide substantial benefits in situational awareness during noisy military operations for a wide range of hearing profiles. [Work based on Defence R&D Canada Contractor Report DRDC Toronto CR-2011-101.]

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207