MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979843461 · doi:10.1121/1.4773858

Training listeners to report the acoustic correlate of formant-frequency scaling using synthetic voices

2013· article· en· W1979843461 on OpenAlexaff
Santiago Barreda, Terrance M. Nearey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantScalingAcousticsVocal tractStimulus (psychology)Speech recognitionAudiologyMathematicsComputer sciencePsychologyVowelPhysicsMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vocal tract length of a speaker is the primary determinant of the range of formant frequencies (FFs) produced by that speaker. Listeners have demonstrated sensitivity to the average FFs produced by voices, for example, in estimating the relative heights of two speakers based on their speech. However, it is not known whether they can learn to identify voices based on the acoustic characteristic associated with the average FFs produced by a voice (this characteristic will be referred to as FF-scaling). To investigate this, a series of vowels corresponding to voices that differed in their average f0 and/or FF-scaling were synthesized. Listeners (n = 71) were trained to identify these voices using a training procedure where, for each trial, they heard the vowels representing a voice and then had to identify the stimulus voice from among a series of candidate voices that differed in terms of their FF-scaling and/or their f0. Results indicate that listeners can identify voices on the basis of FF-scaling quite accurately and consistently after only a short training session and that, although f0 weakly influences these estimates, they are most strongly determined by the stimulus FFs.

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)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207