The sound of round: Evaluating the sound-symbolic role of consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Köhler (1929) famously reported a bias in people's matching of nonsense words to novel object shapes, pointing to possible naïve expectations about language structure. The bias has been attributed to synesthesia-like coactivation of motor or somatosensory areas involved in vowel articulation and visual areas involved in perceiving object shape (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). We report two experiments testing an alternative that emphasizes consonants and natural semantic distinctions flowing from the auditory perceptual quality of salient acoustic differences among them. Our experiments replicated previous studies using similar word and image materials but included additional conditions swapping the consonant and vowel contents of words; using novel, randomly generated words and images; and presenting words either visually or aurally. In both experiments, subjects' image-matching responses showed evidence of tracking the consonant content of words. We discuss the possibility that vowels and consonants both play a role and consider some methodological factors that might influence their relative effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it