MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215119617 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001145

Cochlear Implant Compression Optimization for Musical Sound Quality in MED-EL Users

2021· article· en· W3215119617 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantSound qualityCompression (physics)Quality (philosophy)Dynamic range compressionMusicalPerceptionSound (geography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Variations in loudness are a fundamental component of the music listening experience. Cochlear implant (CI) processing, including amplitude compression, and a degraded auditory system may further degrade these loudness cues and decrease the enjoyment of music listening. This study aimed to identify optimal CI sound processor compression settings to improve music sound quality for CI users. DESIGN: Fourteen adult MED-EL CI recipients participated (Experiment No. 1: n = 17 ears; Experiment No. 2: n = 11 ears) in the study. A software application using a modified comparison category rating (CCR) test method allowed participants to compare and rate the sound quality of various CI compression settings while listening to 25 real-world music clips. The two compression settings studied were (1) Maplaw, which informs audibility and compression of soft level sounds, and (2) automatic gain control (AGC), which applies compression to loud sounds. For each experiment, one compression setting (Maplaw or AGC) was held at the default, while the other was varied according to the values available in the clinical CI programming software. Experiment No. 1 compared Maplaw settings of 500, 1000 (default), and 2000. Experiment No. 2 compared AGC settings of 2.5:1, 3:1 (default), and 3.5:1. RESULTS: In Experiment No. 1, the group preferred a higher Maplaw setting of 2000 over the default Maplaw setting of 1000 (p = 0.003) for music listening. There was no significant difference in music sound quality between the Maplaw setting of 500 and the default setting (p = 0.278). In Experiment No. 2, a main effect of AGC setting was found; however, no significant difference in sound quality ratings for pairwise comparisons were found between the experimental settings and the default setting (2.5:1 versus 3:1 at p = 0.546; 3.5:1 versus 3:1 at p = 0.059). CONCLUSIONS: CI users reported improvements in music sound quality with higher than default Maplaw or AGC settings. Thus, participants preferred slightly higher compression for music listening, with results having clinical implications for improving music perception in CI users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207