MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534436670 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v7n2p155

The Effect of Listening to Recordings of One’s Voice on Attentional Bias and Auditory Verbal Learning

2015· article· en· W1534436670 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mostafa Daryadar, Mahvash Raghibi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Sistan and Baluchestan
KeywordsPsychologyActive listeningCognitive psychologyAudiologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have shown that exposure to recording of one’s own voice can cause a negative reaction. This reaction may affect one’s attentional system and auditory verbal learning rate. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of listening to recordings of one’s own voice on attentional bias in one experiment and to assess the effect on auditory verbal learning in a second experiment. The present study was an experimental study that was designed and conducted as two separate experiments. Fifty-five subjects participated in the first experiment to investigate the effect of listening to recordings of one’s own voice on attentional bias. The auditory Stroop test was performed on a computer with two different voices, i.e., 1) the recorded voice of another person and 2) a recording of the participant’s own voice. The average reaction time of the participants was compared for the two recordings. Sixty-one subjects participated in the second experiment to assess the effect of listening to a recording of one’s own voice on auditory verbal learning. The 61 subjects were divided randomly into two groups, i.e., an experimental group (31 participants) and a control group (30 participants). The Rey auditory verbal learning test (RAVLT, Persian version) was used with two different recordings, i.e., recordings of the participants’ own voices for the experimental group and recordings of another person’s voice for the control group. The mean scores of the two groups were compared for each trial.The comparison of the participants’ mean of reaction time, which was measured twice in the experimental group, showed a significant difference. The comparison of participants’ mean scores between the two groups in the second experiment, showed a significant difference only in the first trial (word span), and no significant difference was found in the other trials. The findings of the study showed that listening a recording of one’s own voice caused attentional bias. Also, listening to a recording of one’s own voice resulted in less auditory verbal learning in word span than listening to the recorded voice of another person.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207