MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011990512 · doi:10.1044/2019_aja-19-00052

Adaptation of the Connected Speech Test: Rerecording and Passage Equivalency

2020· article· en· W3011990512 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan K. Saleh, Paula Folkeard, Ewan A. Macpherson, Susan Scollie

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Audiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyIntraclass correlationPsychologyPerceptionSpeech perceptionRaw scoreStandard deviationMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The original Connected Speech Test (CST; Cox et al., 1987) is a well-regarded and often utilized speech perception test. The aim of this study was to develop a new version of the CST using a neutral North American accent and to assess the use of this updated CST on participants with normal hearing. Method A female English speaker was recruited to read the original CST passages, which were recorded as the new CST stimuli. A study was designed to assess the newly recorded CST passages' equivalence and conduct normalization. The study included 19 Western University students (11 females and eight males) with normal hearing and with English as a first language. Results Raw scores for the 48 tested passages were converted to rationalized arcsine units, and average passage scores more than 1 rationalized arcsine unit standard deviation from the mean were excluded. The internal reliability of the 32 remaining passages was assessed, and the two-way random effects intraclass correlation was .944. Conclusion The aim of our study was to create new CST stimuli with a more general North American accent in order to minimize accent effects on the speech perception scores. The study resulted in 32 passages of equivalent difficulty for listeners with normal hearing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.274
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207