Covering Nasometer Microphones with Plastic Wrap for Infection Control Increases Retest Variability of Nasalance Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nasometer is a popular instrument for the acoustic assessment of nasality. In light of the currently ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, clinicians may have wondered about the infection control procedures for the Nasometer. The current research investigated whether nasalance scores are affected if the Nasometer 6450 microphone casings are covered with a material such as rolled polyvinyl chloride household wrap. For the experiment, pre-recorded sound files from two speakers were played back through a set of small loudspeakers. Nasalance scores from two baselines and three wrap cover conditions were compared. While there was no statistically significant condition effect in a repeated-measures analysis of variance, the within-condition cumulative differences in nasalance scores were 2 for the initial baseline, 42 for wrap cover 1, 24 for wrap cover 2, 78 for wrap cover 3, and 8 for the final baseline. Mean differences between the wrap cover and the baseline conditions were 8.2 to 15.3 times larger, and cumulative differences were 8.3 to 16.6 times larger than between the two baselines. Based on the higher cumulative and mean differences observed, clinicians should not cover Nasometer microphones with household wrap as this increases variability of nasalance scores. Since there is evidence that the COVID-19 virus can survive for some time on metal surfaces, clinicians should be mindful of the fact that the Nasometer microphone housings can only be cleaned superficially and should be handled with gloves to minimize any possible risk of touch transfer of pathogens to the next speaker or the clinician.
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 | 0.001 | 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".