Right-Ear Advantage for Unaided and Aided Speech Perception in Noise in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the magnitude of the right-ear advantage (REA) for speech perception in noise decreased in aided conditions as compared with unaided conditions in older adults bilaterally fitted with hearing aids. A secondary aim was to determine the effect of audibility on the right- and left-ear processing for speech stimuli in both aided and unaided conditions. METHODS: Forty-two older adult, bilateral hearing-aid users were selected. Pure-tone audiometry and the hearing-in-noise test (HINT) were carried out and real-ear insertion gain (REIG) was measured in all participants. All HINT stimuli were delivered via loudspeakers in the free field in both aided and unaided conditions. RESULTS: Right-ear scores for HINT were significantly better than the left ear in both unaided and aided conditions. No significant differences in the magnitude of the REA between the unaided HINT and aided HINT scores were found. Regression models showed that audibility explained 47% and 53% of the variance in unaided HINT scores in the right and left ears, respectively. For the aided HINT scores, age and audibility explained 46% of the variability for the left-ear scores, while for the right ear, the only remaining significant variable in the model was REIG, which explained 12% of the right-ear HINT scores. CONCLUSION: Right-ear processing is significantly more efficient for speech stimuli in both unaided and aided conditions in older adults. Audibility affected unaided speech perception in right and left ears similarly however this was not the case in the aided condition. Audibility was associated with aided speech perception in noise in the left ear only.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".