MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040103296 · doi:10.1162/089892903770007443

Effects of Attentional Load on Auditory Scene Analysis

2003· article· en· W2040103296 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Alain, Aaron Izenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)AudiologyDuration (music)Mismatch negativityAuditory stimuliNegativity effectCognitive psychologyCommunicationSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyPerceptionNeuroscienceComputer scienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of attention on the neural processes underlying auditory scene analysis were investigated through the manipulation of auditory task load. Participants were asked to focus their attention on tuned and mistuned stimuli presented to one ear and to ignore similar stimuli presented to the other ear. For both tuned and mistuned sounds, long (standard) and shorter (deviant) duration stimuli were presented in both ears. Auditory task load was manipulated by varying task instructions. In the easier condition, participants were asked to press a button for deviant sounds (target) at the attended location, irrespective of tuning. In the harder condition, participants were further asked to identify whether the targets were tuned or mistuned. Participants were faster in detecting targets defined by duration only than by both duration and tuning. At the unattended location, deviant stimuli generated a mismatch negativity wave at frontocentral sites whose amplitude decreased with increasing task demand. In comparison, standard mistuned stimuli generated an object-related negativity at central sites whose amplitude was not affected by task difficulty. These results show that the processing of sound sequences is differentially affected by attentional load than is the processing of sounds that occur simultaneously (i.e., sequential vs. simultaneous grouping processes), and that they each recruit distinct neural networks.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations135
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207