Does proximity govern judgments of auditory direction in the azimuthal plane?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an experiment analogous to that of Shepard which showed circularity in judgments of relative pitch of pairs of octave-complex tones [Shepard, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 36, 2346–2353 (1964)], 40 listeners, centered in a sound-attenuated room, judged the apparent direction (clockwise, or counterclockwise) of 396 pairs of successive complex tones emanating from all possible pairs of 12 speakers spaced at 30-degree intervals on an imaginary circumference. Judgments were influenced by speaker proxim-ity and in general mirrored the pattern for judgments of up–down direction associated with the phenomena of circular pitch observed by Shepard. In contrast to Shepard’s pitch judgment task, musical training did not increase sensitivity in the judgment of auditory spatial direction. Unique to the spatial task was the finding that approximately one-half the subjects showed systematic front–back confusion. When this confusion was taken into account, proximity effects were even more apparent. For diametrically opposed speakers (at 180-degrees absent proximity cues), direction was theoretically ambiguous, but listeners showed a small but significant clockwise bias, reminiscent of Deutsch’s tritone paradox for octave-complex tones [Deutsch, Kuyper, and Fisher, Music Percept. 5, 79–92 (1987)]. [Work supported by NSERC.]
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".