MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1973079016 · doi:10.1121/1.3588565

Illusory continuity and masking: Evidence for an illusory tone percept through a notched noise.

2011· article· en· W1973079016 on OpenAlexaff
Valter Ciocca, Nicholas R. Haywood

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptNoise (video)Masking (illustration)AcousticsTone (literature)Backward maskingPerceptionPsychologyAudiologyMathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments measured the illusory continuity of a frequency glide through a noise burst. Expt. 1 used a 2I-2AFC procedure to measure detection of the (target) portion of the frequency glide that overlapped in time with the noise, as a function of noise level. The noise had a frequency notch around the frequency range of the target. The portions of the glide preceding and following the noise (flankers) could be present or absent. Performance at low- and intermediate-noise levels was poorer with present than with absent flankers (at high noise levels, performance was at chance for both conditions). This suggests that listeners either perceptually restored the missing target or that the presence of the flankers resulted in some informational masking of the target. In Exp. 2 listeners rated directly their perception of continuity of the frequency glide for the same flanker conditions of Exp. 1. When the target was absent, continuity ratings increased as noise level increased, and did not differ between intermediate- and high-noise levels. These results suggest that illusory continuity occurred when the noise level was not high enough to mask the target entirely.

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)0.005
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→