MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769936162 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000521

Restoring Perceived Loudness for Listeners With Hearing Loss

2017· article· en· W2769936162 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dirk Oetting, Volker Hohmann, Jens-E. Appell, Birger Kollmeier, Stephan D. Ewert

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
KeywordsLoudnessBinaural recordingHearing lossMonauralNarrowbandAudiologyPsychoacousticsAcousticsHearing aidSound localizationHyperacusisPsychologyComputer sciencePerceptionMedicineTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Normalizing perceived loudness is an important rationale for gain adjustments in hearing aids. It has been demonstrated that gains required for restoring normal loudness perception for monaural narrowband signals can lead to higher-than-normal loudness in listeners with hearing loss, particularly for binaural broadband presentation. The present study presents a binaural bandwidth-adaptive dynamic compressor (BBDC) that can apply different gains for narrow- and broadband signals. It was hypothesized that normal perceived loudness for a broad variety of signals could be restored for listeners with mild to moderate high-frequency hearing loss by applying individual signal-dependent gain corrections. DESIGN: Gains to normalize perceived loudness for narrowband stimuli were assessed in 15 listeners with mild to moderate high-frequency hearing loss using categorical loudness scaling. Gains for narrowband loudness compensation were calculated and applied in a standard compressor. Aided loudness functions for signals with different bandwidths were assessed. The deviation from the average normal-hearing loudness functions was used for gain correction in the BBDC. Aided loudness functions for narrow- and broadband signals with BBDC were then assessed. Gains for a 65 dB SPL speech-shaped noise of BBDC were compared with gains based on National Acoustic Laboratories' nonlinear fitting procedure version 2 (NAL-NL2). The perceived loudness for 20 real signals was compared to the average normal-hearing rating. RESULTS: The suggested BBDC showed close-to-normal loudness functions for binaural narrow- and broadband signals for the listeners with hearing loss. Normal loudness ratings were observed for the real-world test signals. The proposed gain reduction method resulted on average in similar gains as prescribed by NAL-NL2. However, substantial gain variations compared to NAL-NL2 were observed in the data for individual listeners. Gain corrections after narrowband loudness compensation showed large interindividual differences for binaural broadband signals. Some listeners required no further gain reduction for broadband signals; for others, gains in decibels were more than halved for binaural broadband signals. CONCLUSION: The interindividual differences of the binaural broadband gain corrections indicate that relevant information for normalizing perceived loudness of binaural broadband signals cannot be inferred from monaural narrowband loudness functions. Over-amplification can be avoided if binaural broadband measurements are included in the fitting procedure. For listeners with a high binaural broadband gain correction factor, loudness compensation for narrowband and broadband stimuli cannot be achieved by compression algorithms that disregard the bandwidth of the input signals. The suggested BBDC includes individual binaural broadband corrections in a more appropriate way than threshold-based procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207