Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender identification of human voices was studied in a juvenile population of cochlear implant (CI) users exposed to naturalistic speech stimuli from 20 male and 20 female speakers using two different voice gender perception tasks. Stimulus output patterns were recorded from each individual CI for each stimulus, and features related to voice fundamental frequency and spectral envelope were extracted from these electrical output signals to evaluate the relationship between implant output and behavioral performance. In spite of the fact that temporal and place cues of similar quality were produced by all CI devices, only about half of the subjects were able to label male and female voices correctly. Participants showed evidence of using available temporal cues, but showed no evidence of using place cues. The implants produced a consistent and novel cue to voice gender that participants did not appear to utilize. A subgroup of participants could discriminate male and female voices when two contrasting voices were presented in succession, but were unable to identify gender when voices were singly presented. It is suggested that the nature of long-term auditory categorical memories needs to be studied in more detail in these individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".