Contribution of harmonicity and location to auditory object formation in free field: Evidence from event-related brain potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of location and harmonicity cues in sound segregation was investigated using behavioral reports and source waveforms derived from the scalp-recorded evoked potentials. Participants were presented with sounds composed of multiple harmonics in a free-field environment. The third harmonic was either tuned or mistuned and could be presented from the same or different location from the remaining harmonics. Presenting the third harmonic at a different location than the remaining harmonics increased the likelihood of hearing the tuned or slightly (i.e., 2%) mistuned harmonic as a separate object. Partials mistuned by 16% of their original value "pop out" of the complex and were paralleled by an object-related negativity (ORN) that superimposed the N1 and P2 components. For the 2% mistuned stimuli, the ORN was present only when the mistuned harmonic was presented at a different location than the remaining harmonics. Presenting the tuned harmonic at a different location also yielded changes in neural activity between 150 and 250 ms after sound onset. The behavioral and electrophysiological results indicate that listeners can segregate sounds based on harmonicity or location alone. The results also indicate that a conjunction of harmonicity and location cues contribute to sound segregation primarily when harmonicity is ambiguous.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".