MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391109646 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ru49x

Evaluating a Hearing Loop Implementation for Live Orchestral Music

2024· preprint· en· W4391109646 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean McWeeny, Laurel J. Trainor, Steven R. Armstrong, Dan Bosnyak, Hany Tawfik, Ian C. Bruce

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAGE-WELLMcMaster University
KeywordsNaturalnessAudiologySound qualityHearing lossActive listeningQuality (philosophy)Sound (geography)Hearing aidPsychologyComputer scienceSpeech recognitionMedicineCommunicationAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Live music creates a sense of connectedness in older adults, which can help alleviate the social isolation frequently associated with hearing loss and aging. However, most hearing aid (HA) users are dissatisfied with the sound quality for live music and rate sound quality as important to them. Assistive listening systems are frequently independent of a user’s HAs and fall short in tailoring to each individual’s hearing loss. The present study thus tested whether the use of a hearing loop would improve sound quality during an orchestral concert. Method: Participants with symmetrical moderate-to-severe hearing loss were assigned to use Sonova-provided HAs with a telecoil (n = 20) or their own HAs (n = 8) without a telecoil during a performance by the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra. We changed loop input to use microphones from the stage, balcony, or no feed every 5 minutes and collected associated sound quality and naturalness ratings. Results: Sound quality and naturalness ratings were highly related (rRM = .81), though each provided unique insight. Repeated Measures ANOVA found significant differences among the loop feed conditions for sound quality and naturalness, with the No Feed condition significantly outperforming the House condition on sound quality (t(18) = -3.73, adj-p = .005) and naturalness (t(18) = -4.15, adj-p = .002). Mixed effects models allowed us to retain the richness of a repeated observation dataset and provided point estimates of the overall quality and naturalness among conditions; however, assumption violations of normality and homoskedasticity prevent further interpretation. Conclusions: Though hearing aid-integrated assistive listening systems are a promising option for improving live music for people with hearing loss, a hearing loop does not seem to be crucial for orchestral music. Future directions include improving lyric understanding for music with vocals and customizing user experience via Bluetooth Low Energy Audio systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→