The direct and indirect roles of fundamental frequency in vowel perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several experiments have found that changing the intrinsic f0 of a vowel can have an effect on perceived vowel quality. It has been suggested that these shifts may occur because f0 is involved in the specification of vowel quality in the same way as the formant frequencies. Another possibility is that f0 affects vowel quality indirectly, by changing a listener's assumptions about characteristics of a speaker who is likely to have uttered the vowel. In the experiment outlined here, participants were asked to listen to vowels differing in terms of f0 and their formant frequencies and report vowel quality and the apparent speaker's gender and size on a trial-by-trial basis. The results presented here suggest that f0 affects vowel quality mainly indirectly via its effects on the apparent-speaker characteristics; however, f0 may also have some residual direct effects on vowel quality. Furthermore, the formant frequencies were also found to have significant indirect effects on vowel quality by way of their strong influence on the apparent speaker.
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 | 0.000 | 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".