Duration perception of time-varying sounds: The role of the amplitude decay and rise-time modulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that ramped (rising energy) sounds are perceived as longer in duration than damped (falling energy) sounds that are time-reversed, but otherwise identical versions of one another (Schlauch, Ries & DiGiovanni, 2001; Grassi & Darwin, 2006). This asymmetry has generally been attributed to the under-estimation of damped sound duration, rather than the over-estimation of ramped sound duration. As previous literature most commonly employs exponential amplitude modulators, in the present experiment, we investigate whether altering the nature of this amplitude decay- or rise-time modulator (linear or exponential) would influence this typically observed perceptual asymmetry. Participants performed an adaptive, 2AFC task that assessed the point of subjective equality (PSE) between a standard tone with a constant ramped/damped envelope, and a comparator tone with a “flat,” steady state envelope whose duration varied according to a 1-up, 1-down rule. Preliminary results replicated previous findings that ramped sounds are perceived as longer than their time-reversed, damped counterparts. However, for sounds with a linear amplitude modulator, this perceptual asymmetry is partially accounted for by ramped tone over-estimation, contrasting previous findings in the literature conducted with exponential amplitude modulators.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".