MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Binaural Characterization of Active Noise Cancelling Headphones

2024· article· en· W4400114687 on OpenAlexaff
Brady Laska, Rafik Goubran, Bruce Wallace

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadphonesBinaural recordingActive noise controlComputer scienceNoise (video)AcousticsSpeech recognitionNoise reductionPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active noise cancelling (ANC) headphones have traditionally been used to protect hearing or to reduce the masking of noise on a desired signal and in these applications the primary goal is to maximize noise attenuation. Increasingly ANC headphones are being used for general sound control, to reduce noise-induced stress, and to aid focus and concentration. In these situations, the quality and naturalness of the remaining sound becomes more important as there is often no desired playback signal to mask artifacts. Fluctuating noise levels or differences in processing between channels can create distracting artifacts or distort the binaural cues used for sound localization and situational awareness. In this work we propose using a binaural measurement apparatus to characterize the uncancelled residual noise measured inside the cavity of ANC headphones. We evaluate total noise reduction, residual noise quality, and preservation of binaural cues. We validate the approach using representative consumer circumaural (over-ear) ANC headphones. Results show similar levels of attenuation and good subjective noise quality for both low-cost and premium devices. Distortion of low frequency time and level difference cues was observed for high cancellation levels, additional work is needed to quantify the impact of these distortions on localization.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Adaptive Filtering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207