MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086377314 · doi:10.1121/1.4744141

Intelligibility of frequency-shifted speech

2001· article· en· W2086377314 on OpenAlexaff
Jack M. Scott, Peter F. Assmann, Terrance M. Nearey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntelligibility (philosophy)FormantAcousticsEnvelope (radar)MathematicsSpeech recognitionPhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant fact about speech perception is that intelligibility can be preserved when the formant pattern is shifted up or down along the frequency scale. To study the relationship between fundamental frequency (F0) and spectrum envelope shifts, we used a high-quality vocoder (‘‘Straight’’) to process a set of 280 English sentences from the Hearing in Noise Test. Upward shifts in spectrum envelope (shift factors of 1, 2, 3, or 4) were combined with upward shifts in F0 (shift factors of 1, 2, or 4). Word recognition accuracy dropped from near perfect for a spectrum envelope shift factor of 1 (unshifted speech) to 77%, 24%, and 7% for shift factors of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. F0 shifts had a small but significant effect on identification. For a spectrum envelope scale factor of 1, increasing F0 by two octaves (shift factor of 4) resulted in a 16% decline. However, for spectrum envelope shift factors of 2 or greater, increasing F0 led to an improvement in performance. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that learned relationships between F0 and spectrum envelope affect the intelligibility of frequency-shifted speech.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→