MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196266969

Use of auditory steady-state responses in measuring the occlusion effect of hearing protection devices.

2015· article· en· W2196266969 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Olivier Valentin, Frédéric Laville

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada3M
KeywordsAudiologyNoise (video)Masking (illustration)AcousticsBone conductionLimitingAuditory fatigueMicrophoneAudiometerHearing protectionEar canalHearing lossMedicineComputer scienceAudiometryNoise exposureSound pressureEngineeringPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most commonly used solution to protect workers from noise exposure consists in using hearing protection devices (HPDs). An important parameter about HPD is the wearing time, since it can decrease the effective protection provided by HPD. However, the recommended wearing time for limiting exposure to noise is not always respected. The occlusion effect (OE) is one of the reasons often given to justify the non-use of HPD: the occlusion of the ear canal induced a modification of the wearer’s voice perception, which creates a discomfort that sometimes brings people to remove their HPD. Present methods of OE measurement have limitations. Objective measurements using microphone do not asses bone conducted sounds directly transmitted to the cochlea and psychophysical measurements at threshold are biased due to the low-frequency masking effect from test-subjects’ physiological noise, in addition to be affected by the variability inherent in subjective measures. We investigated using auditory steady state responses (ASSR) as a technique which might overcome limitations of these other methods. ASSRs were recorded in eight normal hearing adults, using both “normal” and “occluded” conditions. Pure tone stimuli (250 and 500 Hz) were amplitude modulated at 40 Hz and presented through a forehead bone vibrator. “Physiological” OE was calculated as the average difference between the normal and occluded conditions using linear least-square regression of ASSR amplitude data. Physiological OEs were expected to be different from psychophysical OEs, because we used supra-threshold stimulation levels to eliminate the low-frequency masking effect. However, results suggest that the effect of low-frequency masking may not be as large an influence as previously assumed at 250 Hz (87.5% of subjects at 500Hz, and 25% of subjects at 250 Hz had physiological OEs that were greater than psychophysical OEs). Further research, using an extended frequency range, should be done to validate this hypothesis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207