Evaluation of word recognition and word recall with bone conduction devices: do directional microphones free up cognitive resources?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine if directional microphones improve cognitive capacity in typically hearing adults. The study objectives are to evaluate differences in (1) speech recognition and (2) working memory through a word recall task between bilateral directional and omnidirectional microphone settings.Design: A conductive hearing loss was artificially induced while participants wore bilateral bone conduction hearing aids on softbands. For each hearing aid setting (bilateral omnidirectional and bilateral directional), seven blocks of seven sentences from the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) were presented at a signal-to-noise ratio of +2 dB. Participants repeated each sentence aloud and after each block, wrote down as many of the last words as they could recall.Study sample: Thirty-five typical hearing adults and a subset (n = 20) achieving ≥80% recognition.Results: The directional microphone setting showed significant improvement over the omnidirectional setting for recognition and recall for both the full set of participants and the subset of participants with ≥ 80% recognition.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that features such as directional microphones can improve both speech recognition and working memory. Even in listening situations where participants can understand the majority of speech, directional microphones may offer improvements to cognitive capacity and reduce listening effort.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".