The role of formant amplitude in the perception of /i/ and /u/
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although recent evidence reconfirmed the importance of spectral peak frequencies in vowel identification [Kiefte and Kluender (2005). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 1395-1404], the role of formant amplitude in perception remains somewhat controversial. Although several studies have demonstrated a relationship between vowel perception and formant amplitude, this effect may be a result of basic auditory phenomena such as decreased local spectral contrast and simultaneous masking. This study examines the roles that local spectral contrast and simultaneous masking play in the relationship between the amplitude of spectral peaks and the perception of vowel stimuli. Both full- and incomplete-spectrum stimuli were used in an attempt to separate the effects of local spectral contrast and simultaneous masking. A second experiment was conducted to measure the detectability of the presence/absence of a formant peak to determine to what extent identification data could be predicted from spectral peak audibility alone. Results from both experiments indicate that, while both masking and spectral contrast likely play important roles in vowel perception, additional factors must be considered in order to account for vowel identification data. Systematic differences between the audibility of spectral peaks and predictions of perceived vowel identity were observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".