MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981543796 · doi:10.1044/2014_aja-14-0003

Effects of Low-Pass Filtering on the Perception of Word-Final Plurality Markers in Children and Adults With Normal Hearing

2014· article· en· W1981543796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori J. Leibold, Hannah Hodson, Ryan W. McCreery, Lauren Calandruccio, Emily Buss

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Audiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsAudiologyCutoffContext (archaeology)PluralFilter (signal processing)Cutoff frequencyHigh-pass filterPsychologyPerceptionNoise (video)Speech perceptionLow-pass filterMathematicsAcousticsMedicineComputer scienceLinguisticsPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of low-pass filtering on the detection of word-final /s/ and /z/ for children and adults with normal hearing. METHOD: Stimuli were nouns from the University of Western Ontario Plurals Test (Glista & Scollie, 2012), low-pass filtered with 5 different cutoff frequencies: 8000 Hz, 5000 Hz, 4000 Hz, 3000 Hz, and 2000 Hz. Listeners were children (age range = 7-13 years) and adults with normal hearing. The task was a 2-alternative forced-choice task with a picture-pointing response. RESULTS: Performance was worse for lower than for higher low-pass filter cutoff frequencies, but the effect of low-pass filtering was similar for children and adults. Nearly all listeners achieved 100% correct performance when stimuli were low-pass filtered with cutoff frequencies of 8000 Hz or 5000 Hz. Performance remained well above chance even for the most severe filtering condition (2000 Hz). Restricting high-frequency audibility influenced performance for plural items to a greater extent than for singular items. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that children and adults with normal hearing can use acoustic information below the spectral range of frication noise typically associated with /s/ and /z/ to discriminate between singular and plural forms of nouns in the context of the University of Western Ontario Plurals Test.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207