Functional Testing of Subcutaneous Piezoelectrically Actuated Hearing Aid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of a subcutaneous piezoelectrically actuated hearing aid (SPAHA) with the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) and assess its effectiveness as a treatment option for conductive loss and single-sided deafness (SSD). BACKGROUND: To validate the use of the SPAHA as a bone conduction implant, its performance was compared with a widely used bone conduction implant, the BAHA. Maximum dynamic range, power consumed to deliver standard speech signals and total harmonic distortion (THD) was assessed. The transcranial attenuation was also measured to assess the SPAHA's potential to treat SSD. METHOD: Functional testing of the SPAHA and BAHA was conducted using cadaver heads. Ipsilateral and contralateral promontory velocity and the power consumption by the devices were measured at 111 different frequencies in the range of 200 to 9600 Hz. Performance metrics were derived from these measurements. RESULT: The maximum dynamic range for SPAHA was within 10 dB of that of BAHA. The THD for the SPAHA was at most 3%, slightly better than the BAHA. The power consumption by the SPAHA, whereas highly variable, was not statistically different than that of the BAHA. Transcranical attenuation in case of SPAHA was 5 to 10 dB across the measured frequency range. CONCLUSION: From observed dynamic range and THD, the speech quality delivered by the SPAHA should equal or exceed that delivered by the BAHA. To attain equivalent hearing sensation at lower frequencies, the drive voltage for SPAHA would have to be significantly higher than that for BAHA. For typical speech inputs the power consumption requirements of the SPAHA should be roughly equal to those of the BAHA. Given its performance at high frequencies, the SPAHA seems well-suited to treating SSD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".