MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040580831 · doi:10.1121/1.4784169

Using auditory feedback during vocalization: Different mechanisms for utterance onset and pitch maintenance.

2009· article· en· W2040580831 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Hawco, Jeffery A. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamic Systems and Engines
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUtteranceAuditory feedbackSemitoneComputer scienceSpeech recognitionControl (management)AudiologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During vocalization, auditory feedback is used to attain and maintain a desired fundamental frequency (F0). The use of auditory feedback to control vocalization has been studied using adaptation studies, in which an F0 feedback alteration is maintained across many trials, and using midutterance perturbations, where a brief F0 change is introduced during an ongoing utterance. Participants vocalized during two blocks. In an adaptation block, a one semitone F0 shift was maintained for 40 trials, and midutterance perturbations were introduced by removing the feedback alteration. In a control block, a midutterance perturbation was introduced in trials, which were either unshifted or shifted randomly by one semitone at before the onset of vocalization (similar to the adaptation trials). F0 compensation to midutterance perturbations was identical in all conditions, and was always smaller than the compensation to a shift at utterance onset. These results are explained by a change in the control strategy at utterance onset and mid-utterance. At utterance onset, auditory feedback is compared to feedback predicted by a forward model to ensure the pitch goal is achieved. However, after utterance onset, the control strategy switches and stabilization is maintained by comparing feedback to previous F0 production.

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamic Systems and EnginesFrench-language works237,207