MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360604143 · doi:10.1044/2023_ajslp-22-00161

A Comparison of Voice Amplifiers and Personal Communication Systems for Hypophonia: An Exploration of Communicative Participation

2023· article· en· W4360604143 on OpenAlexaff
Allyson D. Page, Jessi-Rae Schroeder, Thea Knowles, Mandar Jog, Scott Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunicationPsychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate how individuals with hypophonia (HP; also referred to as HP participants) and their primary communication partners (PCPs; also referred to as PCP participants) rate communicative participation before and after experience with a speech amplification device. A secondary purpose was to evaluate pre- and post-device effects on self-rated communicative participation for each of the three speech amplification devices trialed outside of the laboratory. METHOD: Seventeen individuals with HP and their PCPs participated in a crossover design study that compared three different amplification devices: a wired belt-pack amplifier, a wireless stationary amplifier, and a personal frequency modulation (FM) system. Both the individuals with HP and their PCPs self-rated communicative participation at baseline and after trialing each device following 1-week device trial periods at home. Patient-reported outcome measures included the Communicative Effectiveness Survey (CES) and the Voice Activity and Participation Profile (VAPP). Following study completion, participants indicated whether they would like to select a specific device to continue using. RESULTS: Overall, HP participants rated communicative participation following device use higher than that in the pre-device condition, with the FM system resulting in the overall highest VAPP ratings and second highest CES ratings. Furthermore, HP and PCP participants rated these measures similarly. Finally, HP participants who selected a device to continue using self-reported lower total communicative effectiveness scores and greater voice activity limitations and participation restrictions at baseline in comparison to the nonselectors. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to an increased understanding of how communicative participation is experienced within this clinical population resulting from speech amplification. It is suggested that the inclusion of participation-based outcome measurement is essential to ensure a multidimensional and comprehensive approach to device prescription for individuals with HP.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologySame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207