The speed of pitch resolution in a musical context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In five experiments, we investigated the speed of pitch resolution in a musical context. In experiments 1-3, listeners were presented an incomplete scale (doh, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti) and then a probe tone. Listeners were instructed to make a rapid key-press response to probe tones that were relatively proximal in pitch to the last note of the scale (valid trials), and to ignore other probe tones (invalid trials). Reaction times were slower if the pitch of the probe tone was dissonant with the expected pitch (i.e., the completion of the scale, or doh) or if the probe tone was nondiatonic to the key implied by the scale. In experiments 4 and 5, listeners were presented a two-octave incomplete arpeggio, and then a probe tone. In this case, listeners were asked to make a rapid key-press response to probe tones that were relatively distant in pitch from the last note of the arpeggio. Under these conditions, registral direction and pitch proximity were the dominant influences on reaction time. Results are discussed in view of research on auditory attention and models of musical pitch.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".