Formant amplitude in the perception of /i/ and /u/
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although recent evidence reconfirmed the importance of spectral peaks in vowel identification [M. Kiefte and K.R. Kluender, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 1395–1404 (2005)], the roles of formant bandwidth and amplitude in perception have not been firmly established. Although several studies have shown changes in vowel categorization with changes in bandwidth and amplitude, such manipulations often result in peaks that have very little local spectral contrast or which may be perceptually masked by other spectral prominences. This study compares local contrast and masking of spectral peaks in vowel perception. A stimulus continuum ranging from /i/ to /u/ in both the amplitude of the second formant as well as that of higher formants was presented to listeners for identification. Both full-spectrum and incomplete-spectrum stimuli were used to demonstrate the effects of local spectral contrast and simultaneous masking. A second experiment was used to determine if listeners were able to detect the presence of the second spectral peak in the same stimuli. Results from both experiments indicated that both masking and spectral contrast play a role in vowel perception.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".