MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139776370

Cross-modal melodic contour similarity

2009· article· en· W2139776370 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelodyModalSimilarity (geometry)Pitch contourStimulus (psychology)Speech recognitionMathematicsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyMusical
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.
\n
\nAu 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.258 · 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