Modelling Speech Intelligibility in the Noisy Work- place for Normal-hearing and Hearing-impaired Listeners Using Hearing Protectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A speech intelligibility model was developed and validated for use in workplace environments with hazardous noise levels that require the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs). Two speech perception studies were carried out in laboratory simulations of eight workplace noise environments. The first experiment (n = 32 normal-hearing individuals) was used to develop a general model for speech intelligibility that can be tuned to the specific characteristics of the noise. The second experiment (n = 35) was used to validate the general model for use with listeners covering a wide range of hearing profiles (up to severe hearing loss) and wearing HPDs (earplugs or earmuffs). The model took into account the characteristics of the noise, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the attenuation of the hearing protector, and the hearing status of the listener. Good prediction of speech intelligibility scores in noise with HPDs required the use of correction factors to deal with both audibility (threshold) and distortion (supra threshold) effects arising from hearing loss. Correction factors due to audibility effects were computed from the Speech Intelligibility Index and the pure-tone audiogram. Correction factors due to distortion effects were based on the Hearing-in-Noise Test.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".