MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971604472 · doi:10.1068/p7656

Exploring the Role of the Amplitude Envelope in Duration Estimation

2014· article· en· W1971604472 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume T. Vallet, David I. Shore, Michael Schutz

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)PerceptionAmplitudeActive listeningAcousticsEnvelope (radar)Tone (literature)Offset (computer science)Time perceptionSpeech recognitionComputer scienceAudiologyPsychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationPhysicsTelecommunicationsOpticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sound's duration provides important information about the event producing it. Although many of the sounds we hear every day are 'percussive' in nature (ie resulting from two objects impacting) and therefore exhibit decaying/damped amplitude envelopes, perceptual experiments frequently use tones synthesized with 'flat' or abruptly ending envelopes. Such sounds afford an estimation strategy involving calculating the elapsed time between tone onset and offset--a strategy that would be problematic for ecologically pervasive decaying sounds. Here we compare duration judgments for tones with percussive (ie gradually decaying) and flat (ie abruptly ending) amplitude envelopes, finding evidence for the use of different strategies. This result is discussed in terms of its implications for dominant theories and models of sensory perception that are often assessed using artificial sounds (ie 'flat tones') affording strategies that may not be optimal or even available for everyday listening.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207