Cross-modal melodic contour similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two experiments participants rated the similarity of melodic contours presented as auditory (melodies) and visual (line drawings) stimuli.Longer melodies were assessed in Experiment 1 (M = 35 notes); shorter melodies were assessed in Experiment 2 (M = 17 notes).Ratings for matched auditory and visual contours exceeded ratings for mismatched contours, confirming cross-modal sensitivity to contour.The degree of overlap of the surface structure (the relative position of peaks and troughs), and the strength and timing of the cyclical information (the amplitude and phase spectra produced by a Fourier analysis) in the contours predicted cross-modal similarity ratings.Factors such as the order of stimulus presentation (auditory-visual or visual-auditory), melody length (long versus short), and musical experience also affected the perceived similarity of contours.Results validate the applicability of existing contour models to cross-modal contexts and reveal additional factors that contribute to cross-modal contour similarity. r e s u m eAu cours de deux expériences des participants ont estimé la similarité des contours mélodiques présentés comme stimuli auditifs (des mélodies) et visuels (des dessins au trait).Des mélodies longues (M = 35 notes) ont été évaluées dans la première expérience; des mélodies courtes (M = 17 notes) ont été évaluées dans la deuxième expérience.Les estimations de similarité des contours auditifs et visuels équivalents étaient plus élevées que les estimations de similarité des contours auditifs et visuels différents, ce qui confirme la sensibilité des participants aux contours représentés par des modalités sensorielles différentes.Le degré de chevauchement de la structure superficielle (la position relative des crêtes et des cuvettes), et la force et le rythme de l'information cyclique (les spectres d 'amplitude et de phase obtenus par analyse de Fourier) dans les contours ont prédit pour les modalités sensorielles différentes des estimations de similarité élevées.Certains facteurs tels que l 'ordre de la présentation des stimuli (auditif-visuel ou visuel-auditif), la durée de la mélodie (longue ou courte), et l'expérience musicale ont aussi affecté la similarité perçue des contours.Ces résultats déclarent valide l'applicabilité des modèles de contours existants aux différents contextes de modalités sensorielles et dévoilent des facteurs additionnels qui contribuent à la similarité des contours dans ces modalités.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".