The effects of amplitude envelope and context on auditory duration perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we extend research indicating that a sound's amplitude envelope (changes in intensity over time) affects subjective duration (Grassi and Darwin, 2006). Specifically, we explore whether amplitude envelope affects the strategies underlying duration perception by comparing “flat” (abrupt onset, sustain, abrupt offset) and “percussive” (abrupt onset followed by exponential decay) envelopes. Participants performed a two alternative forced choice task: judging which of two tones sounded longer. Trials were divided into blocks organized by envelope: (a1) uniform flat-flat, (a2) uniform percussive-percussive, and (b) mixed (uniform, percussive-flat, and flat-percussive). This was designed to either permit (a) or prohibit (b) envelope-specific listening strategies. Block order was counterbalanced across participants. An analysis of the first block (a between-subjects comparison of uniform and mixed block performance) indicated that performance on flat-flat trials was not significantly different for the two block types, whereas percussive-percussive trial performance was significantly worse for the mixed block. This suggests that participants optimally employ an envelope-specific strategy for the uniform block (a) when able to predict envelope, and a generalized strategy in the mixed block (b) when unable. Interestingly, there was no performance advantage for the uniform block when presented second, suggesting that contextual order effects may affect auditory duration perception.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".