Ear canal deformations by various earplugs: An in situ investigation using MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To be efficient, an Hearing Protection Device (HPD) should be worn during the time the workers are exposed to high level noises in order to protect them against hearing losses or deafness hazards. Several reasons like the difficulty to communicate, aesthetic considerations or discomfort issues prevent the workers from wearing HPDs properly. In the past, some indicators of physical (static pressure on the ear canal walls) and auditory (insertion loss, occlusion effect) discomfort induced by earplugs have been assessed using numerical models. However, most of these models rely on the assumption that the shapes of the open and occluded ear canal are identical which has never been demonstrated experimentally. As the recent rise of medical imaging and numerical computing technologies allows for reconstructing the 3D geometry of the outer ear, this study proposes to investigate the validity of this assumption. The shapes of the open and occluded ear canal of a human subject were obtained using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Several kinds of earplugs were tested. Their non deformed shapes were obtained thanks to preliminary measurements. In each case the qualitative (from a radiologist assessment) and quantitative (from deformation measurements) comparison between the reconstructed occluded and open ear canal was carried out to evaluate whether and how both earplugs and ear canal deform. The deformation of earplugs and tissues of the ear canal provides useful information to investigate how each earplug and skin should be modelled and characterized mechanically in order to predict the earplug sound attenuation and occlusion effect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".