Assessment of transparent alternative listening devices' effects on localization cues using head-related transfer function measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past few years have seen a meteoric rise in technological advancements in the hearing health industry. New alternative listening devices, often referred to as "hearables", aim to become real "bionic ears" offering hearing protection, amplification, monitoring and even biosensing functionalities. With the recent approval of the "Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act" in the United States and the introduction of so-called "OTC" hearing aids, these alternative listening devices now have the potential to revolutionize the world of traditional auditory amplification. Since these devices may be used by individuals with hearing loss, it is important to consider how they might influence spatial auditory awareness. Therefore, this paper studies the effect of alternative listening devices on localization cues using the Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF). In this purpose, we measured the HRTFs on a Head and Torso Simulator (HATS) with and without digital listening devices. To evaluate the acoustic performance of these devices, the devices were set into their "acoustically transparent" mode. These measures enable a preliminary characterization of the effect of hearables and OTC devices on localization cues.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".