Auditory, but perhaps not visual, processing of Lombard speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perception results for three studies are presented that address the role of Lombard speech in auditory, visual, and auditory-visual speech perception. Predictably, when presented in auditory-only conditions with masking noise, listeners recover speech recorded in noise (Lombard speech) better than speech recorded in quiet and presented with the same level of masking noise. However, there is almost no difference in listener performance when Lombard and quiet speech are presented audiovisually with masking noise. Both conditions are enhanced compared to auditory-alone conditions, but there is no indication that the facial motion correlates, demonstrated previously for quiet speech [H.C. Yehia, et al., Speech Commun. 26, 23–44 (1998)], play as strong a role in enhancing auditory-visual processing of Lombard speech, even though Lombard speech is accompanied by larger facial motions. Perhaps it is no surprise that, at a cocktail party, one leans in with an ear rather than with the eyes. [Research supported by CFI and NSERC.]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".