MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2087036086 · doi:10.1121/1.4778939

Context effects on the perception of vowel spectral properties

2002· article· en· W2087036086 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Kiefte, Keith R. Kluender

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelFormantSentencePerceptionContext (archaeology)AcousticsMathematicsSpeech recognitionDuration (music)Set (abstract data type)Speech perceptionMid vowelComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies [M. Kiefte and K. R. Kluender, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 55–62 (2001)] have shown that long-term stationary spectral characteristics have a very strong influence on the perception of specific cues in monophthongs. For example, F2 will be perceptually neglected if a precursor sentence is filtered by a one-pole filter corresponding to the center frequency and bandwidth of the target vowel. The present work continues this research and presents results from experiments using nonspeech precursors. The first set of experiments use speechlike stimuli that have been LPC vocoded from a time-reversed sentence having similar spectro-temporal properties to natural speech. The second set of experiments use FM-formant glides as precursors to test multiple hypotheses including the time course of these effects over varying precursor durations. The second set of experiments also test the hypothesis that the duration of the precursor plays a role in the magnitude of the context effect on the perception of the following vowel.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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