Characterization of Vibration Sensitivity of One-Port and Two-Port MEMS Microphones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) microphones (mics) with two ports are receiving considerable interest in both industry and academia, with the prospect of achieving higher directional sensitivity than their one port counterpart. However, two-port mics measures the pressure differences that exists inside the soundwave itself to record sound, which is fundamentally smaller than the absolute pressure measured in typical one-port mics. This typically commands the use of softer sensing element that are potentially more prone to interference from external vibrations. This work derives a universal expression for microphone sensitivity to vibration and validates it experimentally for two emerging two-port mics. We find that the acoustically-referred vibration sensitivity of two-port MEMS mics, in unit of measured acoustic pressure per external acceleration (i.e., Pascals per g), does not depend on the sensing element stiffness nor on its natural frequency. The vibration sensitivity of two-port MEMS mics is also shown to be inversely proportional to frequency as opposed to the frequency independent behavior observed in one-port MEMS mics.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".