Comunicación verbal método SIL
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 93 keywords for Comunicación verbal método SIL in Google Play
Comunicación verbal método SIL tracks 93 keywords (1 keyword ranks; 92 need traction). Key metrics: 0% top-10 coverage, opportunity 71.2, difficulty 41.6, best rank 12.
The SIL method estimates verbal intelligibility in cases of direct communication
Tracked keywords
93
1 ranked • 92 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
0%
Best rank 12 • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
71.2
Top keyword: summary
Avg difficulty
41.6
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 63.7
summary
Opportunity: 75.0 • Difficulty: 51.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 259
- 65.8
obtain
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 549
- 63.6
pressure
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 42.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 530
- 61.8
speaker
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 282
- 61.0
speakers
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 206
Unranked opportunities
summary
Opportunity: 75.0 • Difficulty: 51.8 • Competitors: 259
obtain
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.9 • Competitors: 549
pressure
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 42.9 • Competitors: 530
speaker
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.1 • Competitors: 282
speakers
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.6 • Competitors: 206
High competition keywords
time
Total apps: 385,850 • Major competitors: 16,372
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 58.7
mobile
Total apps: 280,152 • Major competitors: 10,258
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 56.4
using
Total apps: 222,760 • Major competitors: 11,093
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 58.2
without
Total apps: 212,452 • Major competitors: 10,465
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 57.5
whether
Total apps: 193,364 • Major competitors: 6,940
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.6
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| verbal | 71 | 100 | 31 | 49 1,262 competing apps Median installs: 2,246 Avg rating: 1.8 | 12 | 12 | 38 major competitor apps |
| level | 68 | 100 | 55 | 80 108,633 competing apps Median installs: 1,962 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 6,418 major competitor apps |
| communication | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 57,176 competing apps Median installs: 614 Avg rating: 1.6 | — | — | 1,193 major competitor apps |
| whether | 66 | 100 | 54 | 84 193,364 competing apps Median installs: 889 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 6,940 major competitor apps |
| handle | 73 | 100 | 44 | 68 17,923 competing apps Median installs: 1,285 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 1,004 major competitor apps |
| language | 69 | 100 | 54 | 76 61,785 competing apps Median installs: 2,244 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 2,468 major competitor apps |
| simply | 69 | 100 | 50 | 78 84,171 competing apps Median installs: 1,452 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 3,387 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 56 | 81 116,547 competing apps Median installs: 2,391 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 4,709 major competitor apps |
| people | 68 | 100 | 55 | 80 103,201 competing apps Median installs: 2,258 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 5,279 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 58 | 85 222,760 competing apps Median installs: 2,297 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 11,093 major competitor apps |
| time | 64 | 100 | 59 | 89 385,850 competing apps Median installs: 1,264 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 16,372 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 280,152 competing apps Median installs: 1,245 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 10,258 major competitor apps |
| obtain | 74 | 100 | 42 | 66 13,451 competing apps Median installs: 2,204 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 549 major competitor apps |
| tables | 73 | 100 | 40 | 59 5,017 competing apps Median installs: 2,642 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 244 major competitor apps |
| provides | 67 | 100 | 55 | 83 166,176 competing apps Median installs: 1,227 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 5,004 major competitor apps |
| allows | 67 | 100 | 54 | 84 178,103 competing apps Median installs: 1,251 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 5,820 major competitor apps |
| without | 66 | 100 | 58 | 85 212,452 competing apps Median installs: 2,784 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 10,465 major competitor apps |
| case | 72 | 100 | 45 | 71 27,920 competing apps Median installs: 1,732 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 1,039 major competitor apps |
| enter | 70 | 100 | 49 | 75 52,091 competing apps Median installs: 2,328 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 2,472 major competitor apps |
| calculate | 72 | 100 | 44 | 70 24,575 competing apps Median installs: 1,228 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 695 major competitor apps |
| pressure | 74 | 100 | 43 | 64 9,844 competing apps Median installs: 1,835 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 530 major competitor apps |
| two | 70 | 100 | 50 | 76 58,077 competing apps Median installs: 2,863 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 3,008 major competitor apps |
| different | 66 | 100 | 58 | 84 187,171 competing apps Median installs: 4,067 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 13,720 major competitor apps |
| according | 70 | 100 | 46 | 74 45,560 competing apps Median installs: 3,293 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 1,890 major competitor apps |
| sound | 69 | 100 | 52 | 76 61,379 competing apps Median installs: 5,297 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 4,208 major competitor apps |
App Description
The SIL method estimates verbal intelligibility in cases of direct communication
The UNE EN ISO 9921-2004 standard provides in its annex E a description of this method, considered an objective evaluation method.
This application allows you to obtain two different results:
- Evaluate intelligibility in verbal communication, based on the value of the SIL parameter.
- Calculate maximum distance between speaker and listener to maintain satisfactorily intelligible communication, based on the tables set forth in NTP 794.
NTP 794, referring to the SIL method, proposes three summary tables (depending on whether the sender and receiver are native speakers and listeners without hearing problems, or if it is the case of non-native speakers and listeners, but who handle the language with ease. fluency, or if the people communicating have mild hearing disorders) that allow obtaining the maximum distance between the speaker and the listener at which a communication is considered to be satisfactorily intelligible, based on the previously calculated LSIL.
The SIL method considers environmental noise, the application allows you to enter this value in two ways:
-The measurement carried out with a sound level meter, integrating sound level meter or dosimeter, of the sound pressure levels in the octave bands (500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz), in the position of the listener.
-The A-weighted sound pressure level, measured using a “SLOW” response time at the listener's position.
Other values that need to be entered are the speaker's vocal effort and the distance between speaker and listener. The speaker's vocal effort can be the verbal sound pressure level measured one meter in front of the mouth, or determined according to a vocal effort table.
