Objective Quality and Intelligibility Prediction for Users of Assistive Listening Devices: Advantages and limitations of existing tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an overview of twelve existing objective speech quality and intelligibility prediction tools. Two classes of algorithms are presented, namely intrusive and non-intrusive, with the former requiring the use of a reference signal, while the latter does not. Investigated metrics include both those developed for normal hearing listeners, as well as those tailored particularly for hearing impaired (HI) listeners who are users of assistive listening devices (i.e., hearing aids, HAs, and cochlear implants, CIs). Representative examples of those optimized for HI listeners include the speech-to-reverberation modulation energy ratio, tailored to hearing aids (SRMR-HA) and to cochlear implants (SRMR-CI); the modulation spectrum area (ModA); the hearing aid speech quality (HASQI) and perception indices (HASPI); and the PErception MOdel - hearing impairment quality (PEMO-Q-HI). The objective metrics are tested on three subjectively-rated speech datasets covering reverberation-alone, noise-alone, and reverberation-plus-noise degradation conditions, as well as degradations resultant from nonlinear frequency compression and different speech enhancement strategies. The advantages and limitations of each measure are highlighted and recommendations are given for suggested uses of the different tools under specific environmental and processing conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".