MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1991506529 · doi:10.1121/1.4877484

Availability of envelope interaural time-difference cues does not improve front/back localization of narrow-band high-frequency targets via head movement

2014· article· en· W1991506529 on OpenAlexaff
Ewan A. Macpherson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWidebandInteraural time differenceAcousticsNarrowbandSound localizationNoise (video)Anechoic chamberSine waveBandwidth (computing)Binaural recordingComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information about the front/rear location of a sound source is available in the relationship between the direction of head rotation and the direction of changes in interaural time and level differences (ITD and ILD). Our previous results show that such dynamic cues are highly effective for low-frequency stimuli, but minimally effective for narrowband high-frequency stimuli, in which, respectively, ITD and ILD cues are primarily available. In this study, we assessed the possible benefit for dynamic localization of providing more robust envelope ITD cues in high-frequency stimuli. Listeners judged the front/rear location of anechoic free-field stimuli presented over the central portion of a slow (~0.25 Hz), continual, 90-degree head oscillation. Stimuli were bursts of wideband (0.5–16 kHz), low-frequency (0.5–1 kHz), or high-frequency (6–6.5 kHz) random-phase noise or of raised-sine stimuli with exponent 2, modulation frequency 125 Hz, and bandwidth 6–6.5 kHz. Localization accuracy was high for wideband and lowpass stimuli but poor (and similar) for high-frequency noise and raised-sine stimuli, despite listeners' measured ITD JNDs for raised-sine stimuli being significantly lower than for high-frequency noise. The results suggest that neither veridical dynamic ILD nor ITD cues can overcome the erroneous spectral cue for front/back created by narrowband high-frequency stimuli.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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