Perceptual asymmetries in the discrimination of brief auditory time intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment was conducted to determine whether perceptual asymmetries would emerge in a task requiring the discrimination of two auditory time intervals. The first interval (standard) was presented binaurally and the other one (comparison) monaurally. The intervals were either filled (continuous sound) or empty (duration between two brief sounds). A total of 24 right-handed participants (12 women, 12 men) completed the four conditions (two Ear×two Structure). The results revealed that filled intervals were perceived as shorter when the monaural signal was presented to the left ear than when it was presented to the right ear, whereas there was no ear effect for empty intervals. Interval structure was not a significant factor when the monaural signals were delivered to the right ear, suggesting a right ear advantage in duration estimation. Finally, temporal sensitivity was better with empty than with filled intervals, but this effect was independent of the location of the monaural signals. The results are discussed with reference to potential effects of attention and the role of structural aspects underlying perceptual asymmetries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".