Is There Loss of Vibration Amplitude Across the Snap Coupling of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: There is loss of vibration transmission across the snap coupling connecting the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid transducer to the implanted abutment on the head. BACKGROUND: The only nonrigid part of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid system is the connection between the output of the transducer and the abutment. Vibration losses across the coupling have not been previously measured. If a loss is found, a change in design could improve the efficiency of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid. This would be very helpful in borderline cases in which the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid does not have enough power to achieve adequate hearing threshold levels. METHODS: A laser Doppler vibrometer was used to measure vibrations on the output stem and four points on the abutment of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid. The Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid was coupled to a dry skull through a plexiglas bite bar screwed to the skull. The impedance load was varied by fixing the skull. A control loose coupling was measured. Five Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Compacts were measured. RESULTS: There was little loss across the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid snap coupling. At frequencies above 500 Hz, there was no more than 5-dB loss at any frequency. Changing the impedance load by fixing the skull did not change the loss across the coupling. CONCLUSION: The snap coupling is an efficient means of transmitting vibrations to the skull. There is little loss of vibration attenuation across it. Increases in functional Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid amplification gain cannot be achieved by further optimizing this interface.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".