Children's speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions
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
This paper reports speech and loudness measures on a group of children in a double-blind cross-over trial comparing the NAL-NL1 and DSL[i/o] prescriptions. Twenty-four children with hearing impairment were fitted with digital WDRC hearing aids at each site (Australia, Canada). Speech recognition was measured for nonsense syllables and for the 50% correct threshold for sentence recognition in noise. Loudness ratings for sentences were made on a 7-point scale. Measures were made at fitting and repeated following 8-week trials. Fitting orders were randomized and counterbalanced. Significant differences in consonant recognition occurred for individual children. On average, scores at the 80 dB SPL presentation level were better with the NAL-NL1 fitting. Loudness ratings differed at baseline but did not differ following home trials. Speech recognition scores revealed a small but significant interaction of prescription with level in quiet but not in noise. Individual children had significant performance differences. Loudness ratings showed significant acclimatization effects for children at both sites.SumarioEste trabajo reporta las mediciones de lenguaje y de intensidad subjetiva en un grupo de niños sometidos a un estudio cruzado doble ciego, que comparó las prescripciones NAL-NL1 y DSL. A 24 niños con problemas auditivos se les adaptaron auxiliares auditivos digitales con WDRC en cada sede (Australia, Canadá). El reconocimiento del lenguaje se midió con sílabas sin sentido y con el umbral correcto del 50% de reconoci-miento de oraciones en ruido. Los índices de intensidad subjetiva con oraciones se obtuvieron con base en una escala de 7 grados. Las mediciones se tomaron al hacer la adaptación y de manera repetida con pruebas cada 8 semanas. Las instrucciones de adaptación se manejaron con bases aleatorias y de contrapeso. Se encontraron diferencias significativas en el reconocimiento de consonantes en algunos niños. En promedio, las puntuaciones en el nivel de presentación de 80 dB SPL fueron mejores con la adaptación NAL-NL1. Los índices de intensidad subjetiva difirieron en el basal, pero no en las siguientes pruebas en el hogar. Las puntuaciones de reconocimiento del lenguaje revelaron una pequeña pero significativa interacción de la prescripción con el nivel sin ruido pero no con ruido. Los niños en lo individual tuvieron diferencias de rendimiento significativas. Los índices de intensidad subjetiva mostraron efectos de aclimatación en los niños, en las dos sedes.
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 | 0.001 | 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