Auditory spatial attention in a complex acoustic environment while walking: Investigation of dual-task performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory spatial attention in a complex acoustic environment while walking was investigated to find the dual-task performance. Three undergraduate students, ages 19 to 26 years, with normal pure-tone air-conducted hearing thresholds for frequencies from 0.25 to 8 kHz, performed a word identification task in two experimental conditions. Testing was conducted in StreetLab in the Challenging Environment Assessment Laboratory (CEAL) at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute. The stimuli for the listening task were all sentences recorded by four male talkers for the Coordinated Response Measure (CRM). All participants completed 8 sessions in each of two conditions; standing and walking. The standing and walking conditions differed in terms of whether or not there was a secondary task during listening. The high degree of similarity in listening task performance between the standing and walking conditions suggest that the listening abilities in multi-talker environments of these participants were not affected by the inclusion of a walking component.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".