Modeling Speech Level as a Function of Background Noise Level and Talker-to-Listener Distance for Talkers Wearing Hearing Protection Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Studying the variations in speech levels with changing background noise level and talker-to-listener distance for talkers wearing hearing protection devices (HPDs) can aid in understanding communication in background noise. Method: Speech was recorded using an intra-aural HPD from 12 different talkers at 5 different distances in 3 different noise conditions and 2 quiet conditions. Results: This article proposes models that can predict the difference in speech level as a function of background noise level and talker-to-listener distance for occluded talkers. The proposed model complements the existing model presented by Pelegrín-García, Smits, Brunskog, and Jeong (2011) and expands on it by taking into account the effects of occlusion and background noise level on changes in speech sound level. Conclusions: Three models of the relationship between vocal effort, background noise level, and talker-to-listener distance for talkers wearing HPDs are presented. The model with the best prediction intervals is a talker-dependent model that requires the users' unoccluded speech level at 10 m as a reference. A model describing the relationship between speech level, talker-to-listener distance, and background noise level for occluded talkers could eventually be incorporated with radio protocols to transmit verbal communication only to an intended set of listeners within a given spatial range-this range being dependent on the changes in speech level and background noise level.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".