MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076029080 · doi:10.1121/1.2942600

Intelligibility of information in temporally desynchronized bands of speech

2007· article· en· W2076029080 on OpenAlexaff
Christian E. Stilp, Keith R. Kluender, Joshua M. Alexander, Michael Kiefte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntelligibility (philosophy)MathematicsMaxima and minimaSyllableAcousticsSpeech recognitionComputer sciencePhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Stilp et al., [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 3195 (2007)] demonstrated that acoustic measures of potential information, absent explicit linguistic information, are closely related to intelligibility of locally time-reversed sentences. Here, this finding is replicated in two experiments in which synchronization of speech energy within four spectral bands was perturbed in different ways. An ensemble of seven-syllable sentences was synthesized at three different speaking rates (2.5, 5.0, 10 syllables/s) and filtered by one-third-octave Butterworth filters centered at 335, 850, 2135, and 5400 Hz. In Experiment 1, onset of the 335- and 5,400-Hz bands was delayed by multiple durations (0, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 600 ms). Across speaking rates, intelligibility was a nonmonotonic function of delay with local minima corresponding to roughly one syllable. Smaller and larger delays yielded better performance. In Experiment 2, bands were nonlinearly scaled in time (jittered) to preserve overall duration with local rate adjusted to preserve the same overall degree of desynchronization as Experiment 1. Performance monotonically decreased with increasing jitter. Overall, results closely mimic previous findings for locally time-reserved sentences, and provide support that physical acoustic potential information closely relates to intelligibility of temporally distorted speech. [Work supported by NIDCD.]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207