Evaluating benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with hearing loss using behavioural and predictive metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of remote-microphone (RM) systems for adults with sensory hearing loss. DESIGN: Speech recognition in quiet and in background noise was assessed. Participants with hearing loss underwent testing in two device conditions: hearing aids (HAs) alone and HAs with a RM. Normal hearing participants completed testing in the unaided condition. Predictive speech intelligibility modelling using the Hearing-Aid Speech Perception Index (HASPI) was also performed on recordings of HA processed test material. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty adults with sensory hearing loss and 10 adults with normal hearing participated. RESULTS: Speech recognition for participants with hearing loss improved significantly when using the RM compared to HAs alone fit to Phonak's proprietary prescription. Largest benefits were observed in the most challenging conditions. At the lowest signal-to-noise ratio, participants with hearing loss using a RM outperformed normal hearing listeners. Predicted intelligibility scores produced by HASPI were strongly correlated to behavioural results. CONCLUSIONS: Adults using HAs who have significant difficulties understanding speech in noise will experience considerable benefits with the addition of a RM. Improvements in speech recognition were observed for all participants using RM systems, including those with relatively mild hearing loss. HASPI modelling reliably predicted the speech perception difficulties experienced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".