IMPOVING THE EFFICACY OF AUDITORY ALARMS IN MEDICAL DEVICES BY EXPLORING THE EFFECT OF AMPLITUDE ENVELOPE ON LEARNING AND RETENTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite strong interest in designing auditory alarms in medical devices, learning and retention of these alarms remains problematic. Based on our previous work exploring learning and retention of associations between sounds and objects, we suspect that some of the problems might in fact stem from the types of sounds used in medical auditory alarms. Several of our previous studies demonstrate improvements in memory associations when using sounds with “percussive ” (i.e. decaying) envelops vs. those with “flat ” (i.e. artificial sounding) envelopes – the standard structure generally used in many current alarms. Here, we attempt to extend our previous findings on the effects of temporal structure on the learning and memory. Unfortunately, we did not find evidence of any such benefit in the current study. However, several interesting patterns are emerging with respect to “confusions ” – the times when one alarm was confused with another. We believe this paradigm and way of thinking about alarms (i.e. attention to temporal structure) could provide insight on ways to improve auditory alarms, thereby prevent injuries and saving lives in hospitals. We welcome the chance to gather feedback on our approaches and thoughts as to why our current attempts (which we believe are based on a solid theoretical basis) have not yet led to our hoped-for improvements. 1.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".