MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089663426 · doi:10.1121/1.3310196

Why are natural sounds detected faster than pips?

2010· article· en· W2089663426 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Suied, Patrick Susini, Stephen McAdams, Roy D. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural soundsTone (literature)AcousticsEnvelope (radar)Natural (archaeology)Computer scienceWhite noiseSpeech recognitionBioacousticsNoise (video)Artificial intelligencePhysicsBiologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simple reaction times (RTs) were used to measure differences in processing time between natural animal sounds and artificial sounds. When the artificial stimuli were sequences of short tone pulses, the animal sounds were detected faster than the artificial sounds. The animal sounds were then compared with acoustically modified versions (white noise modulated by the temporal envelope of the animal sounds). No differences in RTs were observed between the animal sounds and their modified counterparts. These results show that the fast detection observed for natural sounds, in the present task, could be explained by their acoustic properties.

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)0.018
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207