MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396916953 · doi:10.1044/2024_aja-23-00258

Examining Force Level Output of Skin-Drive Bone Conduction Hearing Devices in Adults With Simulated Conductive Hearing Loss

2024· article· en· W4396916953 on OpenAlex
Rana El-Naji, Susan Scollie, Marlene Bagatto

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Audiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone conductionDigital subscriber lineAudiologyHearing aidTransducerHearing lossMedicineBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceAcousticsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Bone conduction hearing devices (BCDs) that deliver sound across the skin (i.e., transcutaneous) are suitable for some individuals who have conductive or mixed hearing losses. Prescriptive targets for percutaneous devices are available, for example, from the Desired Sensation Level-Bone Conduction Hearing Device (DSL-BCD) algorithm. These targets, however, may require modification for use with transcutaneous BCDs. The current study investigated three key variables that may inform target modification: (a) comparison of thresholds measured using an audiometric bone conduction (BC) transducer versus transcutaneous BCDs that offer in situ threshold measurement, (b) transcutaneous BCD default force level outputs versus recommended DSL percutaneous BC targets, and (c) the preferred listening levels (PLLs) of adults wearing transcutaneous BCDs in a laboratory setting. METHOD: Bilateral conductive hearing loss was simulated in 20 normal-hearing adults via earplugs. Thresholds were measured using a B-71 BC transducer and two commercially available BCDs coupled to a soft headband. DSL percutaneous BC targets were generated, and PLLs were obtained for a 60-dB SPL speech stimulus. Force level outputs were measured using a skull simulator on the Audioscan Verifit2 at the hearing aids' default settings and at the participants' PLL for each device. RESULTS: On average, audiometric BC thresholds were significantly better than those measured in situ with each BCD. PLLs were similar to prescribed targets for one device with the smoother response shape and agreed in the high frequencies for both devices. CONCLUSIONS: In situ thresholds are significantly higher than audiometric BC thresholds, suggesting that device-based in situ measurement more accurately accounts for the signal transmission from transcutaneous BCDs. PLLs differed from the percutaneous targets and varied between devices, which may indicate that either target modifications or manipulations of device frequency response shaping are needed to approximate PLL with transcutaneous BCD devices.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.246 · 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