Increased listening effort and decreased speech discrimination at high presentation sound levels in acoustic hearing listeners and cochlear implant users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sounds we experience in our everyday communication can vary greatly in terms of level and background noise depending on the environment. Paradoxically, increasing the sound intensity may lead to worsened speech understanding, especially in noise. This is known as the "Rollover" phenomenon. There have been limited studies on rollover and how it is experienced differentially across aging groups, for those with and without hearing loss, as well as cochlear implant (CI) users. There is also mounting evidence that listening effort plays an important role in challenging listening conditions and can be directly quantified with objective measures such as pupil dilation. We found that listening effort was modulated by sound level and that rollover occurred primarily in the presence of background noise. The effect on listening effort was exacerbated by age and hearing loss in acoustic listeners, with greatest effect in older listeners with hearing loss, while there was no effect in CI users. The age- and hearing-dependent effects of rollover highlight the potential negative impact of amplification to high sound levels and therefore has implications for effective treatment of age-related hearing loss.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".