MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063568671 · doi:10.1121/1.2934629

Fast Detection for Natural Animal Sounds

2008· article· en· W2063568671 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Suied, Marie Lémery Magnin, Sabine Langlois, Patrick Susini, Stephen McAdams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural soundsLoudnessStimulus (psychology)Speech recognitionComputer scienceTone (literature)AudiologyAcousticsPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer visionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human listeners seem remarkably good at identifying complex and natural sounds. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to the simple detection of such sounds. The present experiments measured the time course of sound detection in human listeners. Two categories of sounds were used: a train of 1-kHz pure tone pulses varying along an Inter Onset Interval dimension (termed here "IOI" sounds) and animal call sound samples. All sounds were equalized in loudness in a preliminary experiment. The task consisted of a simple reaction time, in which listeners were presented with interleaved IOI and animal sounds and had to manually press a button as fast as possible when they heard any stimulus. Two main results were observed. First, reaction times were significantly shorter for IOIs of 50, 33 and 25 ms than for an IOI of 100 ms, with no significant differences between IOIs of 33 and 25 ms, highlighting a threshold at 33 ms. Second, average reaction times were significantly shorter for animal sounds than for IOI sounds. Differences in terms of spectral content and temporal modulation characteristics might explain part of these effects. These results also suggest a fast detection advantage for natural animal sounds.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207