Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithm for Adults with Hearing Loss: The Acceptable Range for Amplified Conversational Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: This study had two related purposes: first, to define the range of optimal ear canal levels of aided speech in both high frequency and low frequency regions for adults, using both subjective and objective definitions of optimal; and second, to determine whether a prescribed frequency response, such as that given by Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output], falls within the adult listener's optimal range. Design: Twenty-three adult listeners with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were selected from a pool of research volunteers. They were fitted in the laboratory with the Siemens Signia hearing instrument and tested with 20 nominally different frequency responses. All advanced processing options of the hearing instrument were disabled. Subjective ratings of loudness and quality and objective measures of consonant identification were obtained for every frequency response. Results: These adult listeners had, on average, a 10 dB range of measured responses in both the low and the high frequencies that resulted in optimal performance on all the measurements. The range did not vary with degree or configuration of hearing loss, or previous hearing aid experience. Desired-Sensation-Level Input/Output targets were within the optimal range for the low frequencies, and 3 dB above the optimal range for the high frequencies. Conclusions: A range of aided ear canal frequency responses was determined within which adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss performed optimally on both objective and subjective outcomes. Clinical implications of this finding include the following: prescriptive methods providing different targets may all result in optimal fittings; and a range of targets may be more appropriate than a single target when setting the frequency-gain characteristics of the hearing instrument. The DSL[i/o] hearing instrument prescription method was evaluated for its acceptability for adult listeners; specifically, whether the prescribed frequency response optimally amplified average speech. Twenty-three adults with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with a commercially available hearing aid with most features disabled. Speech intelligibility, loudness, and quality measures were taken at the prescribed frequency response and alternate frequency responses. Any differences between the subject's optimal response and the prescribed response were calculated in real-ear SPL. A range of optimal settings was found. These results and their implications for changes to the DSL prescription 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".