MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2087471432 · doi:10.1109/isie.2006.295518

Tracking the pseudo-pitch of unvoiced sounds: a hand-free interface modality for disabled users

2006· article· en· W2087471432 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Fimbel, Rachid Abiza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModality (human–computer interaction)Computer scienceInterface (matter)Speech recognitionMicrophoneFormantEnergy (signal processing)AcousticsArtificial intelligenceSound pressureTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed a prototype of interface for persons with severe motor disabilities based on a new entry modality, namely unvoiced sounds like hissing, inspiration or expiration. Unlike sip-and-puff sensors, this modality uses the height of the sound as an analog parameter. Unvoiced sounds have no fundamental frequency (pitch). However they present a formant (pseudo-pitch), i.e., a peak of energy (typically above 800 Hz) that is perceived as the height of the sound. The pseudo-pitch can be partially controlled even in case of speech impairment. In our prototype, the pseudo-pitch is tracked in real time. Commands are entered by stabilizing the pseudo-pitch at the desired frequency. A voice-detection algorithm shuts off the entry during speech and strong noises, e.g., cough. It is possible to enter commands at a low volume and to speak aloud in the same microphone. Preliminary tests indicate that with the help of visual feedback, it is possible to produce 4 different commands and attain throughput above that throughputs above 166 bits/minute can be attained

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→