Validity and reliability of integrated pressure level real-ear-to-coupler difference measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To validate the measurement of foam-tip real-ear-to-coupler differences (wRECD) using an integrated pressure level (IPL) method and (2) to compare the reliability of this method to SPL-based measurement of the wRECD. DESIGN: SPL-based wRECD and the proposed IPL wRECD measurement were completed bilaterally. Test-retest reliability of IPL wRECD was determined with full re-insertion into the ear canal and compared to published SPL wRECD test-retest data. STUDY SAMPLE: 22 adults with normal hearing and middle ear status were recruited. RESULTS: Differences between SPL-based wRECD and IPL wRECD measurements were within 1.51 dB on average below 5000 Hz. At and above 5000 Hz, IPL wRECD exceeded SPL wRECDs by 6.11 dB on average. The average test-retest difference for IPL wRECD across all assessed frequencies was 0.75 dB with the greatest improvements in reliability found below 750 Hz and above 3000 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: IPL wRECD yielded improved estimates compared to SPL wRECD in high frequencies, where standing-wave interference is present. Independence from standing wave interference resulted in increased wRECD values above 4000 Hz using the IPL measurement paradigm. IPL wRECD is more reliable than SPL wRECD, does not require precise probe-microphone placement, and provides a wider valid wRECD bandwidth than SPL-based measurement.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".