ArticleScientific reports2023
An earphone fit deviation analysis algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study provides an accurate method for evaluating the fit of earphones, which could be used for establishing a linkage between interference/gap values with human perception. Seven commercial CAD software tools stood out and were explored for the analysis of the deviation between earphone and ear. However, the current deviation analysis method remains to be improved for earphone fit evaluation due to excessive points in the calculation (Geomagic Wrap and Siemens NX), lack of value on interference (Geomagic Control X), computation boundary required (Rapidform XOR/Redesign), repetitive computation with same points and inclined calculation line segment or even invalid calculation (Solidworks, Creo). Therefore, an accurate deviation analysis algorithm was promoted, which calculated the deviation between earphone and ear exactly and classified the interference set and gap set precisely. There are five main procedures of this algorithm, which are point cloud model pre-processing, the generation of distance vectors, the discrimination of interference set and gap set, the discrimination of validity, and statistical analysis and visualization. Furthermore, the usability and validity of the deviation analysis algorithm were verified through statistical analysis and comparing visual effects based on the earphone-wearing experiment. It is certified that the deviation analysis algorithm is appropriate for earphone fit evaluation and the eight indexes of this algorithm were proved to be related to subjective comfort scores. It is meaningful for ear-worn product fit analysis, design, and development phases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.