MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981033241 · doi:10.3766/jaaa.14.9.7

Acoustic Hemifields in the Spatial Release from Masking of Speech by Noise

2003· article· en· W1981033241 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis P. Phillips, Bronwyn K. Vigneault-MacLean, Susan E. Boehnke, Susan Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoacousticsStimulus (psychology)AcousticsSpeech perceptionAudiologyNoise (video)Intelligibility (philosophy)PerceptionAzimuthMasking (illustration)Speech recognitionMathematicsPsychologyComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT) is able to measure the benefit to speech intelligibility in noise conferred when the noise masker is displaced 90 degrees in eccentricity from a speech source located at zero degrees azimuth. Both psychoacoustic and neurophysiological data suggest that the perceptual benefit of the 90-degree azimuth separation would be greatest if the speech and noise were presented in different acoustic hemifields, and would be smallest if the two sources were in the same acoustic hemifield. The present study tested this hypothesis directly in ten normal-hearing adult listeners. Using the HINT stimuli, we confirmed the hypothesis. Release from masking scores averaged 8.61 dB for "between-hemifield" conditions, 6.05 dB for HINT conditions, and 1.27 dB for "within-hemifield" conditions, even though all stimulus configurations retained a 90-degree angular separation of speech and noise. These data indicate that absolute separation of speech and noise alone is insufficient to guarantee a significant release from masking, and they suggest that what matters is the location of the stimulus elements relative to the left and right spatial perceptual channels. La Prueba de Audición en Ruido (HINT) permite medir los beneficios para la inteligibilidad del lenguaje en ruido que ocurre cuando el enmascarador de ruido es desplazado 90 grados de la fuente de lenguaje localizada a 0 grados azimut. Tanto los datos psicoacústicos como neurofisiológicos sugieren que el beneficio perceptual de la separación de 90 grados azimut sería mayor si el lenguaje y el ruido fueran presentados en diferentes hemicampos acústicos, y sería menor si las dos fuentes estuvieran en el mismo hemicampo. El presente estudio evaluó esta hipótesis directamente en diez sujetos adultos normo-oyentes. Utilizando los estímulos del HINT, confirmamos la hipótesis. Los puntajes de liberación del enmascaramiento promediaron 8.61 dB para las condiciones de "entre-hemicampos". 6.05 dB para las condiciones del HINT, y 1.27 para las condiciones "dentro del hemicampo", a pesar de que la configuración de todos los estímulos retuvo una separación angular de 90 grados entre el lenguaje y el ruido. Estos datos indican que la separación absoluta del ruido y lenguaje solos es insuficiente para garantizar una liberación significativa del enmascaramiento, y sugieren que lo que importa es la localización de los elementos del estímulo con relación a los canales perceptuales espaciales derecho e izquierdo.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207