Compensations in response to real-time formant perturbations of different magnitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous auditory perturbation studies have demonstrated that talkers spontaneously compensate for real-time formant-shifts by altering formant production in a manner opposite to the perturbation. Here, two experiments were conducted to examine the effect of amplitude of perturbation on the compensatory behavior for the vowel /epsilon/. In the first experiment, 20 male talkers received three step-changes in acoustic feedback: F1 was increased by 50, 100, and 200 Hz, while F2 was simultaneously decreased by 75, 125, and 250 Hz. In the second experiment, 21 male talkers received acoustic feedback in which the shifts in F1 and F2 were incremented by +4 and -5 Hz on each utterance to a maximum of +350 and -450 Hz, respectively. In both experiments, talkers altered production of F1 and F2 in a manner opposite to that of the formant-shift perturbation. Compensation was approximately 25%-30% of the perturbation magnitude for shifts in F1 and F2 up to 200 and 250 Hz, respectively. As larger shifts were applied, compensation reached a plateau and then decreased. The similarity of results across experiments suggests that the compensatory response is dependent on the perturbation magnitude but not on the rate at which the perturbation is introduced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".