A Comparison of Speech Amplification and Personal Communication Devices for Hypophonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study compared the performance of three amplification devices hypothesized to improve speech communication in individuals with hypophonia (HP), as well as to identify individuals' device preferences. Method Twenty-two individuals with HP and their primary communication partners participated in a cross-over design study comparing three different speech amplification devices: a wired portable amplifier (Device A), a wireless stationary amplifier (Device B), and a one-way personal communication system (Device C). Participants attended one laboratory visit followed by 1-week trial periods with each device. At the first visit, HP participants completed speech tasks with and without the devices, in quiet and in noise. Following the in-laboratory test period, participants trialed each device at home for approximately 1 week per device. Following completion of the study, participants indicated whether or not they would like to continue using a device. Results Overall, in the presence of noise, all three devices demonstrated significant improvements in speech-to-noise levels and speech intelligibility compared to no device. A clear device hierarchy emerged such that the personal communication device (Device C) was associated with significantly better speech outcomes compared to the other two devices. The majority of participants elected to continue using a device at the completion of the study. Device preferences, however, did not clearly reflect the objective device hierarchy that was found for the objective speech measures. Each of the three devices was selected as a preferred device by at least three participants at the completion of the study. Conclusion Results from this study demonstrated clear differences in device performance in three distinct forms of amplification devices for individuals with HP. Findings suggest that amplification device use may be beneficial for this clinical population and underscore the potential to improve device availability and device selection criteria in future research. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12735875.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".