Modification of acoustic-vocal mappings for fundamental frequency control in singers and nonsingers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Singing requires accurate control of the fundamental frequency (F0) of the voice. Previous work has demonstrated that F0 control involves an interplay between closed- and open-loop control. A frequency-altered auditory feedback (FAF) paradigm was used to examine the acoustic-motor representation of the mapping between F0 feedback and the vocal production system in singers and nonsingers. Participants sang a note while hearing their F0 shifted down one semitone. Both singers and nonsingers compensated for the F0 perturbations by increasing their F0. However, the magnitude of compensations was initially smaller in singers than nonsingers. Moreover, after participants heard their feedback returned to normal, the aftereffects observed for singers were larger than those observed for nonsingers. This pattern of aftereffects generalized to the production of another note different than the one participants produced while hearing FAF. Combined, these observations suggest that singers rely more on an internal model for F0 production during singing than nonsingers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".