Perceptual Acclimatization Post Nonlinear Frequency Compression Hearing Aid Fitting in Older Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of frequency compression hearing aids on speech perception ability and the time course and magnitude of acclimatization-related changes. METHOD: Participants included children ages 11-18 years. Speech perception ability was evaluated over well-controlled baseline, treatment, and withdrawal study phases. Study-worn hearing aids were individually fitted to all participants. The authors evaluated speech perception ability using outcomes of speech detection (/s/ and /[symbol in text]/ sounds), /s-[symbol in text]/ discrimination, and plural and consonant recognition. RESULTS: Indices of change were discussed on a case-by-case basis across all study phases. Significant treatment effects were measured for all cases, on at least one measure, with some listeners displaying significant acclimatization trends following a trial of frequency compression. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that frequency compression provided varying outcomes, both in benefit and acclimatization, across listeners. For some, a period of acclimatization was necessary before change could be measured. For others, performance remained stable over the time course under evaluation, suggesting that some but not all children will experience improved speech recognition ability after a period of frequency compression hearing aid use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".