Electroacoustic and Behavioural Evaluation of Hearing Aid Digital Signal Processing Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern digital hearing aids provide an array of features to improve the user listening experience. As the features become more advanced and interdependent, it becomes increasingly necessary to develop accurate and cost-effective methods to evaluate their performance. Subjective experiments are an accurate method to determine hearing aid performance but they come with a high monetary and time cost. Four studies that develop and evaluate electroacoustic hearing aid feature evaluation techniques are presented. The first study applies a recent speech quality metric to two bilateral wireless hearing aids with various features enabled in a variety of environmental conditions. The study shows that accurate speech quality predictions are made with a reduced version of the original metric, and that a portion of the original metric does not perform well when applied to a novel subjective speech quality rating database. The second study presents a reference free (non-intrusive) electroacoustic speech quality metric developed specifically for hearing aid applications and compares its performance to a recent intrusive metric. The non-intrusive metric offers the advantage of eliminating the need for a shaped reference signal and can be used in real time applications but requires a sacrifice in prediction accuracy. The third study investigates the digital noise reduction performance of seven recent hearing aid models. An electroacoustic measurement system is presented that allows the noise and speech signals to be separated from hearing aid recordings. It is shown how this can be used to investigate digital noise reduction performance through the application of speech quality and speech intelligibility measures. It is also shown how the system can be used to quantify digital noise reduction attack times. The fourth study presents a turntable-based system to investigate hearing aid directionality performance. Two methods to extract the signal of interest are described. Polar plots are presented for a number of hearing aid models from recordings generated in both the free-field and from a head-and-torso simulator. It is expected that the proposed electroacoustic techniques will assist Audiologists and hearing researchers in choosing, benchmarking, and fine-tuning hearing aid features.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".