MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W164299287 · doi:10.3233/oer-2007-7302

Effects of sound types and volumes on simulated driving, vigilance tasks and heart rate

2008· article· en· W164299287 on OpenAlexaff
Brian H. Dalton, David G. Behm, Armin Kibele

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Ergonomics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQUIETVigilance (psychology)AudiologyAffect (linguistics)PerceptionPsychologySpeech recognitionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCommunicationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to determine whether specific types and volumes of sounds affect driving-related tasks. Participants completed six trials while exposed to different sound types (hard rock, classical music and industrial noise) and volumes (53 versus 95 db (A)). Participants executed a randomized order of tasks, involving: movement (MT), reaction time (RT), simulated driving (SimD), and non-conscious perception of masking stimuli. The results suggest high volumes impaired SimD, RT and MT. During hard rock music, accommodation HR was significantly higher whereas male RT was slower than female RT. However, RT was enhanced when subjects were exposed to hard rock music during a non-conscious task of longer duration. SimD crashes increased during quiet hard rock music in comparison to quiet industrial noise. Experimental HR was lower during quiet sound volumes for both genders. In summary, loud volumes affect simple vigilance whereas hard rock music may affect tasks involving concentration and attention especially with males.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational ErgonomicsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207