Effect of age, presentation method, and learning on identification of noise-vocoded words
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noise vocoding was used to investigate the ability of younger and older adults with normal audiometric thresholds in the speech range to use amplitude envelope cues to identify words. In Experiment 1, four 50-word lists were tested, with each word presented initially with one frequency band and the number of bands being incremented until it was correctly identified by the listener. Both age groups required an average of 5.25 bands for 50% correct word identification and performance improved across the four lists. In Experiment 2, the same participants who completed Experiment 1 identified words in four blocked noise-vocoded conditions (16, 8, 4, 2 bands). Compared to Experiment 1, both age groups required more bands to reach the 50% correct word identification threshold in Experiment 2, 6.13, and 8.55 bands, respectively, with younger adults outperforming older adults. Experiment 3 was identical to Experiment 2 except the participants had no prior experience with noise-vocoded speech. Again, younger adults outperformed older adults, with thresholds of 6.67 and 8.97 bands, respectively. The finding of age effects in Experiments 2 and 3, but not in Experiment 1, seems more likely to be related to differences in the presentation methods than to experience with noise vocoding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".