MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050943672 · doi:10.1121/1.4743688

Gross versus detailed spectral cues in spectrally distorted speech

2000· article· en· W2050943672 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Kiefte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantAcousticsNoise (video)Spectral resolutionConsonantSpectral shape analysisMathematicsPerceptionArticulation (sociology)Place of articulationSpeech recognitionComputer scienceSpectral linePhysicsVowelArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was designed to address the importance of gross versus detailed spectral features in the perception of stop-consonant place of articulation. This is done by presenting listeners with noise-vocoded stimuli in which the spectral resolution of the processed tokens is severely reduced. While it can be assumed that such a transformation will effectively eliminate detailed spectral features, such as burst-peak and formant frequencies, previous work has shown that this is not necessarily the case [M. Kiefte, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 2273 (1999)]. Nevertheless, it is shown that gross spectral features, such as spectral tilt and compactness, are better able to predict listeners’ identifications of noise-vocoded stimuli. While this suggests that listeners attend primarily to gross spectral shape cues, which are assumed to be particularly robust in such distorted speech, it is also shown that detailed spectral features are better able to model listeners’ responses to undistorted speech. [Work supported by SSHRC.] a)Now at the Dept. of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207