Pitch perception and frequency-following response in inharmonic signals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that auditory-evoked frequency-following response (FFR) is related to pitch [Greenberg et al., Hear. Res. 25, 91–114 (1987)], which is usually related to fundamental frequency of complex sounds. We examined FFR to dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) signals used in telephone communication. As these tones have been used to produce melodies, it was expected that they would have a measurable pitch and this was also determined in a behavioral task. Twelve subjects matched perceived pitch of DTMF signals to a pure tone via method of adjustment. In addition, the FFR to the same signals was recorded from the same subjects to establish whether significant FFR energy was present at the frequency of the perceived pitch. Correlation analysis of data from the behavioral task showed wide variation among subjects, with many identifying the perceived pitch as matching the lower of the two partials. Significant FFR energy was detected at both partials, which does not clarify the relationship between perceived pitch and the evoked response. In addition, we show that perceived pitch is highly context dependent and present data from FFR to stimuli in melodic contexts.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".