MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406870697 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001626

Evaluating a Hearing Loop Implementation for Live Orchestral Music

2025· article· en· W4406870697 on OpenAlexaff
Sean McWeeny, Laurel J. Trainor, Steven R. Armstrong, Dan Bosnyak, Hany Tawfik, Ian C. Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaturalnessAudiologySound qualityActive listeningHearing lossSound (geography)Hearing aidQuality (philosophy)Computer sciencePsychologySpeech recognitionCommunicationMedicineAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Live music creates a sense of connectedness in older adults, which can help alleviate the social isolation frequently associated with hearing loss and aging. However, most hearing-aid (HA) users are dissatisfied with the sound quality of live music and rate sound quality as important to them. Assistive listening systems are frequently independent of a user's HAs and fall short in tailoring to each individual's hearing loss. The present study thus tested whether the use of a hearing loop would improve sound quality during an orchestral concert. DESIGN: Participants with symmetrical moderate-to-severe hearing loss were assigned to use Sonova-provided HAs with a telecoil (n = 20) or their own HAs (n = 8) without a telecoil during a performance by the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra. We changed loop input to use one of three feeds every 5 minutes: a mix of microphones from the hall's standard assistive feed on the first balcony (house condition), a mix of microphones located on the stage (stage condition), or no input to the loop (no feed). After each 5-minute interval, we collected sound quality and naturalness ratings for the previous 5 minutes. RESULTS: Sound quality and naturalness ratings were highly related (rRM = 0.81), though each provided unique insight. Repeated measures analysis of variance found significant differences among the loop feed conditions for sound quality and naturalness, with the no feed condition significantly outperforming the house condition on sound quality [ t (18) = -3.73, adj. p = 0.005] and naturalness [ t (18) = -4.15, adj. p = 0.002]. Mixed effects models allowed us to retain the richness of a repeated observation dataset and provided point estimates of the overall quality and naturalness among conditions; however, assumption violations of normality and homoskedasticity prevented further interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Though HA-integrated assistive listening systems are a promising option for improving live music for people with hearing loss, a hearing loop does not seem to be crucial for orchestral music. Future directions include improving lyric understanding for music with vocals and customizing user experience via Bluetooth Low Energy Audio systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207