Cross-Modal Sensory Boosting to Improve High-Frequency Hearing Loss: Device Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-frequency hearing loss is one of the most common problems in the aging population and with those who have a history of exposure to loud noises. This type of hearing loss can be frustrating and disabling, making it difficult to understand speech communication and interact effectively with the world. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the impact of spatially unique haptic vibrations representing high-frequency phonemes on the self-perceived ability to understand conversations in everyday situations. METHODS: To address high-frequency hearing loss, a multi-motor wristband was developed that uses machine learning to listen for specific high-frequency phonemes. The wristband vibrates in spatially unique locations to represent which phoneme was present in real time. A total of 16 participants with high-frequency hearing loss were recruited and asked to wear the wristband for 6 weeks. The degree of disability associated with hearing loss was measured weekly using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). RESULTS: =2.14; P=.10, 2-tailed independent t test). The average benefit score across all participants for ease of communication was 15.44 (SD 13.88; N=16; P<.001, 2-tailed dependent t test). The average benefit score across all participants for background noise was 10.88 (SD 17.54; N=16; P=.03, 2-tailed dependent t test). The average benefit score across all participants for reverberation was 10.84 (SD 16.95; N=16; P=.02, 2-tailed dependent t test). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that vibrotactile sensory substitution delivered by a wristband that produces spatially distinguishable vibrations in correspondence with high-frequency phonemes helps individuals with high-frequency hearing loss improve their perceived understanding of verbal communication. Vibrotactile feedback provides benefits whether or not a person wears hearing aids, albeit in slightly different ways. Finally, individuals with the greatest perceived difficulty understanding speech experienced the greatest amount of perceived benefit from vibrotactile feedback.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".