Detection of random alterations to time-varying musical instrument spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The time-varying spectra of eight musical instrument sounds were randomly altered by a time-invariant process to determine how detection of spectral alteration varies with degree of alteration, instrument, musical experience, and spectral variation. Sounds were resynthesized with centroids equalized to the original sounds, with frequencies harmonically flattened, and with average spectral error levels of 8%, 16%, 24%, 32%, and 48%. Listeners were asked to discriminate the randomly altered sounds from reference sounds resynthesized from the original data. For all eight instruments, discrimination was very good for the 32% and 48% error levels, moderate for the 16% and 24% error levels, and poor for the 8% error levels. When the error levels were 16%, 24%, and 32%, the scores of musically experienced listeners were found to be significantly better than the scores of listeners with no musical experience. Also, in this same error level range, discrimination was significantly affected by the instrument tested. For error levels of 16% and 24%, discrimination scores were significantly, but negatively correlated with measures of spectral incoherence and normalized centroid deviation on unaltered instrument spectra, suggesting that the presence of dynamic spectral variations tends to increase the difficulty of detecting spectral alterations. Correlation between discrimination and a measure of spectral irregularity was comparatively low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".