Hearing Aids Benefit Recognition of Words in Emotional Speech but Not Emotion Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vocal emotion perception is an important part of speech communication and social interaction. Although older adults with normal audiograms are known to be less accurate at identifying vocal emotion compared to younger adults, little is known about how older adults with hearing loss perceive vocal emotion or whether hearing aids improve the perception of emotional speech. In the main experiment, older hearing aid users were presented with sentences spoken in seven emotion conditions, with and without their own hearing aids. Listeners reported the words that they heard as well as the emotion portrayed in each sentence. The use of hearing aids improved word-recognition accuracy in quiet from 38.1% (unaided) to 65.1% (aided) but did not significantly change emotion-identification accuracy (36.0% unaided, 41.8% aided). In a follow-up experiment, normal-hearing young listeners were tested on the same stimuli. Normal-hearing younger listeners and older listeners with hearing loss showed similar patterns in how emotion affected word-recognition performance but different patterns in how emotion affected emotion-identification performance. In contrast to the present findings, previous studies did not find age-related differences between younger and older normal-hearing listeners in how emotion affected emotion-identification performance. These findings suggest that there are changes to emotion identification caused by hearing loss that are beyond those that can be attributed to normal aging, and that hearing aids do not compensate for these changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".