Preferred Listening Levels of Children Who Use Hearing Aids: Comparison to Prescriptive Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The preferred listening levels (PLLs) of children with sensorineural hearing loss were elicited using conversation-level speech, heard through the children's own hearing aids. All hearing aids were fitted using the desired sensation level (DSL) method. Comparisons were made between the PLL and targets from the following prescriptive formulae: DSL version 4.1 and two versions of the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) procedure, including NAL revised for severe-profound losses (NAL)-RP and NAL nonlinear NAL/NL1. Results for this sample of children indicated that the PLL was similar to the DSL targets, and that, on average, NAL-RP/NL1 targets recommended less gain than that preferred by the majority of children in this study. The implications of factors such as acclimatization, test levels, and clinical procedures on these results are discussed. Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, BLS = binaural loudness summation, BTE = behind the ear, DSL = desired sensation level, LDL = loudness discomfort level, MCL = most comfortable level, NAL = National Acoustics Laboratories, PLL = preferred listening level, POGO = prescription of gain and output, RECD = real-ear-to-coupler difference, SPL = sound pressure level, SSPL = saturation sound pressure level, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".