Test-retest evaluation of a notched-noise test using consumer-grade mobile audio equipment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether consumer-grade mobile audio equipment can be reliably used as a platform for the notched-noise test, including when the test is conducted outside the laboratory. DESIGN: Two studies were conducted: Study 1 was a notched-noise masking experiment with three different setups: in a psychoacoustic test booth with a standard laboratory PC; in a psychoacoustic test booth with a mobile device; and in a quiet office room with a mobile device. Study 2 employed the same task as Study 1, but compared circumaural headphones to insert earphones. STUDY SAMPLE: Nine and ten young, normal-hearing participants completed studies 1 and 2, respectively. RESULTS: The test-retest accuracy of the notched-noise test on the mobile implementation did not differ from that for the laboratory setup. A possible effect of the earphone design was identified in Study 1, which was corroborated by Study 2, where test-retest variability was smallest when comparing results from experiments conducted using identical acoustic transducers. CONCLUSIONS: Results and test-retest repeatability comparable to standard laboratory settings for the notched-noise test can be obtained with mobile equipment outside the laboratory.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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".