Academic literature on the topic 'Preferences'

Automatic directionality algorithms currently implemented in hearing aids assume that hearing-impaired persons with similar hearing losses will prefer the same microphone processing mode in a specific everyday listening environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the robustness of microphone preferences in everyday listening. Two hearing-impaired persons made microphone preference judgments (omnidirectional preferred, directional preferred, no preference) in a variety of everyday listening situations. Simultaneously, these acoustic environments were recorded through the omnidirectional and directional microphone processing modes. The acoustic recordings were later presented in a laboratory setting for microphone preferences to the original two listeners and other listeners who differed in hearing ability and experience with directional microphone processing. The original two listeners were able to replicate their live microphone preferences in the laboratory with a high degree of accuracy. This suggests that the basis of the original live microphone preferences were largely represented in the acoustic recordings. Other hearing-impaired and normal-hearing participants who listened to the environmental recordings also accurately replicated the original live omnidirectional preferences; however, directional preferences were not as robust across the listeners. When the laboratory rating did not replicate the live directional microphone preference, listeners almost always expressed no preference for either microphone mode. Hence, a preference for omnidirectional processing was rarely expressed by any of the participants to recorded sites where directional processing had been preferred as a live judgment and vice versa. These results are interpreted to provide little basis for customizing automatic directionality algorithms for individual patients. The implications of these findings for hearing aid design are discussed. Los algoritmos automáticos de direccionalidad actualmente implementados en auxiliares auditivos asumen que las personas hipoacúsicas con pérdidas similares preferirán el mismo modo de procesamiento del micrófono en los ambientes cotidianos específicos de escucha. El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar la firmeza de las preferencias de micrófonos para la audición cotidiana. Dos personas hipoacúsicas establecieron juicios de preferencia en cuanto a los micrófonos (preferencia omnidireccional, preferencia direccional, sin preferencia) en una variedad de situaciones cotidianas de escucha. Simultáneamente, estos ambientes acústicos fueron registrados a través de modos omnidireccionales y direccionales de procesamiento del micrófono. Las grabaciones acústicas fueron luego presentadas en un contexto de laboratorio para preferencias del micrófono a los dos sujetos originales y a dos sujetos que diferían en su habilidad auditiva y en su experiencia con procesamiento direccional de micrófonos. Los dos sujetos originales pudieron replicar en el laboratorio sus preferencias de micrófono en vivo con un alto grado de exactitud. Esto sugiere que las bases para la preferencia original y aquella en vivo de los micrófonos fueron correctamente representadas en los registros acústicos. Otros participantes con hipoacusia y normoyentes que escucharon los registros ambientales también replicaron con exactitud las preferencias omnidireccionales originales en vivo; sin embargo, las preferencias direccionales no fueron tan consistentes entre todos ellos. Cuando la clasificación de laboratorio no replicó la preferencia direccional de micrófono en vivo, los sujetos casi siempre dejaron de expresar preferencia por ningún modo de micrófono. Por lo tanto, la preferencia para procesamiento omnidireccional raramente fue escogida por ninguno de los participantes para situaciones donde se había preferido el registro direccional como un juicio en vivo y viceversa. Se interpreta que estos resultados aportan poco en la búsqueda de adecuar automáticamente los algoritmos de direccionalidad para pacientes individuales. Se discuten las implicaciones de estos hallazgos en el diseño de auxiliares auditivos.

Abstract This Article offers a critical evaluation of preference satisfaction as a frame for normative thinking. It begins with an internal critique of the way preferences work in normative economics, distinguishing among three elements: welfare; preferences; and choices. For preference satisfaction to work well, it must be able to bridge two gaps, one between choice and preferences, and another between preferences and welfare. In contexts where both those gaps are bridged, preference satisfaction offers a workable normative framework; where at least one of those gaps is unbridgeable, the framework should be treated with extreme caution if not jettisoned altogether. The Article then goes on to pursue an external critique, by asking what price we pay for using the preference satisfaction framework when it appears to perform well. The point of the critique is that even when preference satisfaction provides a good normative framework on its own terms, the framework obscures considerations that should not be ignored. By pursuing one concrete example, the Article shows how broad considerations regarding the implications of the regime of wage labor are absent from legal contemplation when labor law is imagined and shaped through the lens of preference satisfaction. The Article concludes with a speculation about how different theories of welfare might be employed in concert, rather than as alternatives. It suggests that a pluralism of theory is a way to expose the political stakes in the kinds of policy discussion where preference satisfaction is often a dominant way of thinking.

With the development of the economy and science technology, global resource shortages and environmental pressures have become the focus of attention. More and more consumers tend to buy non-polluting and environmentally friendly green products, and many manufacturers and retailers are beginning to produce or sell green products to enhance their competitive advantage in the market. Considering the green preference attributes of consumers, the altruistic preference is introduced into the supply chain, and we establish four models: two cooperative manufacturers and one retailer are completely self-interested, one retailer has altruistic preference, two cooperative manufacturers have altruistic preferences, and two cooperative manufacturers and one retailer have altruistic preferences. We address the optimal greenness and pricing decisions of supply chain members, and analyze the impact of altruistic preferences on supply chain decision-making and profits. The results show that the altruistic preference coefficient can significantly affect the decision-making and the profits of supply chain members, and when two manufacturers and one retailer consider altruistic preferences, the altruistic preference coefficients adopted by the three parties are in the certain ranges, the supply chain members’ altruistic preference coefficients can increase the whole supply chain profit. Through analysis, in the three cases where the retailer has altruistic preferences, two manufacturers have altruistic preferences, and two manufacturers and one retailer have altruistic preferences, two manufacturers should adopt higher altruistic preference coefficients, and the retailer should adopt a lower altruistic preference coefficient, and the product greenness under the three altruistic preferences is higher than the product greenness when there is no altruistic preference.

Moral theories which include a preference-fulfillment aspect should not restrict their concern to some subset of people’s preferences such as “now-for-now” preferences. Instead, preferences with all contents—e.g. ones which are external, diachronic, or even modal—should be taken into account. I offer a conceptualization of preferences and preference fulfillment which allows us to understand odd species of preferences, and I give a series of examples showing what it would mean to fulfill such preferences and why we ought to do so.

Facial appearance in humans is associated with attraction and mate choice. Numerous studies have identified that adults display directional preferences for certain facial traits including symmetry, averageness, and sexually dimorphic traits. Typically, studies measuring human preference for these traits examine declared (e.g., choice or ratings of attractiveness) or visual preferences (e.g., looking time) of participants. However, the extent to which visual and declared preferences correspond remains relatively untested. In order to evaluate the relationship between these measures we examined visual and declared preferences displayed by men and women for opposite-sex faces manipulated across three dimensions (symmetry, averageness, and masculinity) and compared preferences from each method. Results indicated that participants displayed significant visual and declared preferences for symmetrical, average, and appropriately sexually dimorphic faces. We also found that declared and visual preferences correlated weakly but significantly. These data indicate that visual and declared preferences for manipulated facial stimuli produce similar directional preferences across participants and are also correlated with one another within participants. Both methods therefore may be considered appropriate to measure human preferences. However, while both methods appear likely to generate similar patterns of preference at the sample level, the weak nature of the correlation between visual and declared preferences in our data suggests some caution in assuming visual preferences are the same as declared preferences at the individual level. Because there are positive and negative factors in both methods for measuring preference, we suggest that a combined approach is most useful in outlining population level preferences for traits.