## 3 Results  
The mean transcription accuracy scores for No RM conditions (Baseline) and RM conditions are presented in Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 2. There were three factors of interest, including technology condition, noise type, and SNR. In general, RM conditions yielded greater accuracy than the No RM conditions. Of initial interest was the comparison of baseline conditions as shown in Table 4. The use of AP alone without the smartphone was compared to KEMAR alone to determine improvements related to the AP alone. Contrary to the results obtained with humans, the accuracy of the VTT was higher for the KEMAR alone condition compared to the two AP conditions, most likely due to the occlusion effect of the AP and the lack of binaural processing. Therefore, given the uniqueness of this arrangement, no statistical analyses were completed for the baseline conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Technology**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Speech Noise (dB SNR)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Babble Noise (dB SNR)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} \\  & **+5** & **0** & \(-\)**5** & **+5** & **0** & \(-\)**5** & \\ \hline AP NC & 93.83 & 79.01 & 46.30 & 93.83 & 78.40 & 45.06 & 72.74 \\ AP TP & 85.80 & 67.28 & 45.06 & 92.59 & 78.40 & 59.26 & 71.40 \\ KEMAR & 96.00 & 79.67 & 49.00 & 93.67 & 83.67 & 60.67 & 77.11 \\ Mean & 91.88 & 75.32 & 46.79 & 93.36 & 80.16 & 55.00 & 73.75 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} NOTE: The mean transcription accuracy of three baseline testing conditions is presented as combinations of noise type and SNR: babble/speech noise at \(+5\), 0, and \(-5\) dB SNR. AP = AirPods Pro; NC = noise cancellation; TP = transparency; SNR = signal-to-noise ratio; KEMAR = Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research; KEMAR means the KEMAR alone condition.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean transcription accuracy at each baseline condition. Figure 2: Mean of transcription accuracy scores under different conditions: (**A**) under speech-shaped noise; (**B**) under babble noise. NOTE: RM = remote microphone; AP = AirPods Pro; TP = transparency; NC = noise cancellation; LL = Live Listen; KEMAR = Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research; SNR = signal-to-noise ratio. Error bars represent + one standard deviation. Of greater interest was the comparison of the RM technology conditions shown in Table 5. The statistical analyses included a repeated-measures ANOVA for the RM technology conditions of interest (Roger, AP NC + LL, and AP TP + LL), noise type (speech and babble), and SNR (+5, 0, and \(-\)5 dB). Significant main effects were observed for technology [F(2,34) = 47.45, \(p\) < 0.001, large partial \(\eta^{2}\) (\(\eta^{2}\); effect size) = 0.74, Mean Square Error (MSE) = 20.55], noise type [F(1,34) = 8.65, \(p\) = 0.006, large \(\eta^{2}\)\(p\) = 0.20, MSE = 20.55], and SNR [F(2,34) = 42.91, \(p\) < 0.001, large \(\eta^{2}\)\(p\) = 0.72, MSE = 20.55]. The accuracy was significantly higher when tested in speech noise compared to babble noise (84.22% vs. 79.89%) with a small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.35). A significant two-way interaction was only found between the SNR and technology [F(4,34) = 6.03, \(p\) = 0.001, large \(\eta^{2}\)\(p\) = 0.42, MSE = 20.55]. All other interactions were non-significant (\(p\) > 0.05). Follow-up analyses were performed using [PERSON]'s adjustment for each significant effect (\(p\)-value was marked as \(p_{adj}\)). For the main effect of RM technology conditions, the transcription accuracy of [PERSON] (95.06%) was significantly better than AP TP + LL (81.22%) (t\({}_{34}\) = 9.15, \(p_{adj}\) < 0.001; large [PERSON]'s d = 1.50) but not better than AP NC + LL (92.50%) (t\({}_{34}\) = 1.69, \(p_{adj}\) = 0.22, small [PERSON]'s d = 0.41). There was also a significant difference between the two AP conditions that AP NC + LL was significantly greater than AP TP + LL (t\({}_{34}\) = 7.46, \(p_{adj}\) < 0.001; large [PERSON]'s d = 1.17).