MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101771740 · doi:10.1109/iecon.1999.819380

An adjustable filter-bank based algorithm for hearing aid systems

2003· article· en· W2101771740 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Ben Hamida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsFilter bankFlexibility (engineering)Hearing aidComputer scienceDigital signal processingFilter (signal processing)Speech recognitionSpeech processingCochleaComputer hardwareEngineeringComputer visionAudiologyMedicineElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An adjustable filter-bank based algorithm for digital speech processing "DSP" has been developed for hearing aid systems. This one was endowed with great flexibility and could be used both in cochlear prostheses by enabling to stimulate properly cochlea's nervous cells of totally or profoundly deaf patients, and in conventional hearing aids by providing different possibilities in searching patient comfort. Unlike other similar algorithms, programming handiness was provided to select basic speech characteristics to be considered for patient hearing. The implementation of this filter-bank algorithm on cochlear-prosthesis' DSP-board enables to generate and to control electrical stimulating pulses. In conventional hearing aids driven by DSP, a filter bank-based algorithm permits an ease adjustment of speech amplification, which is fully programmable within the considered sounds' spectrum. In each device, a programmable spectrum cut-up permits to adjust filters' bands relatively to patient's pathology. Programming via a host computer enable flexibility in speech amplification for conventional hearing aids and in cochlea's stimulation for cochlear prostheses. It combines handiness, ease of use and safety features to help meet individual's diverse needs. A computer illustration, based on spectrum cutting-up, was designed to identify filters' outputs. Hence, with this visual measure, clinicians could set up experiments for adjusting correctly hearing aid's operation-parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207