MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2005977574 · doi:10.1121/1.4744077

The importance of the first 80 ms of room impulse responses: A historical review

2001· review· en· W2005977574 on OpenAlexaff
John S. Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonauralBinaural recordingAcousticsSound energyCLARITYImpulse (physics)Intelligibility (philosophy)PsychologySound (geography)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The direct sound and reflections arriving within 80 ms after it are particularly important to the perceived quality of sound in rooms such as concert halls and auditoria and have been the focus of the majority of research on concert hall acoustics over the past 50 years. Most of the sound energy is usually concentrated in this time interval and this early sound energy determines many of the perceived characteristics of the hall. Although some remarkable early experiments date back to the 1850s, the major advances concerning how these early reflections are perceived have occurred more recently. Monaural effects including explanations of how our hearing system integrates early reflections, the precedence effect, and the development of measures of clarity and intelligibility have developed from initial work in the 1950s. A little more recently the binaural effects leading to perceived spatial impression have been explained and shown to be critical to achieving good concert halls. Physical measures have been developed that relate to both the monaural and binaural subjective phenomena. This work will review the development of our understanding of the importance of early arriving sound on the acoustical characteristics of concert halls and auditoria.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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