Remote microphone performance in exercise environments: an effectiveness–implementation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of implementing remote microphones in group exercise environments. DESIGN: This study used a modified effectiveness-implementation hybrid design, with an electroacoustic assessment of hearing aid remote microphones using manikins as simulated talkers and listeners. Test conditions were at varying distances, azimuths, and reverberation levels in exercise environments. The listener manikins were programmed to simulate mild-to-moderate sloping audiograms and were fitted with three brands of premium receiver-in-the-canal style hearing aids, including their proprietary remote microphones (both low- and high-technology levels). Recordings of these conditions were compared to the reference recordings using the Hearing Aid Speech Perception Index. STUDY SAMPLE: This was a manikin-based research study, therefore, human subjects were not recruited. RESULTS: Remote microphones produced higher speech perception scores than hearing aids alone regardless of reverberation levels, hearing loss, or the distances and azimuths relative to the simulated talker. Remote microphones were shown to be feasible to implement in exercise environments. CONCLUSIONS: Remote microphone technology may be beneficial to exercisers with hearing loss in exercise environments, however, this area remains highly understudied. Future behavioural assessments of remote microphones in environments with individuals with hearing loss are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".