Predicting binaural speech intelligibility using the signal-to-noise ratio in the envelope power spectrum domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes a binaural extension to the multi-resolution speech-based envelope power spectrum model (mr-sEPSM) [Jørgensen, Ewert, and Dau (2013). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 436-446]. It consists of a combination of better-ear (BE) and binaural unmasking processes, implemented as two monaural realizations of the mr-sEPSM combined with a short-term equalization-cancellation process, and uses the signal-to-noise ratio in the envelope domain (SNRenv) as the decision metric. The model requires only two parameters to be fitted per speech material and does not require an explicit frequency weighting. The model was validated against three data sets from the literature, which covered the following effects: the number of maskers, the masker types [speech-shaped noise (SSN), speech-modulated SSN, babble, and reversed speech], the masker(s) azimuths, reverberation on the target and masker, and the interaural time difference of the target and masker. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the simulated speech reception thresholds and the data across all experiments was 0.91. A model version that considered only BE processing performed similarly (correlation coefficient of 0.86) to the complete model, suggesting that BE processing could be considered sufficient to predict intelligibility in most realistic 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".