Perceptual impact of gesture control of spatialization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two experiments, visual cues from gesture control of spatialization were found to affect auditory movement perception depending on the identifiability of auditory motion trajectories, the congruency of audiovisual stimulation, the sensory focus of attention, and the attentional process involved. Visibility of the performer’s gestures improved spatial audio trajectory identification, but it shifted the listeners’ attention to vision, impairing auditory motion encoding in the case of incongruent stimulation. On the other hand, selectively directing attention to audition resulted in interference from the visual cues for acoustically ambiguous trajectories. Auditory motion information was poorly preserved when dividing attention between auditory and visual movement feedback from performance gestures. An auditory focus of attention is a listener strategy that maximizes performance, due to the improvement caused by congruent visual stimulation and its robustness to interference from incongruent stimulation for acoustically unambiguous trajectories. Attentional strategy and auditory motion calibration are two aspects that need to be considered when employing gesture control of spatialization.
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.
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) | 0.094 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it