MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140616900

Perceiving filled vs. empty time intervals: A comparison of adjustment and magnitude estimation methods

2012· article· en· W2140616900 on OpenAlex
Emi Hasuo, Yoshitak Nakajima, Erika Tomimatsu, Simon Grondin, Kazuo Ueda

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

VenueProceedings of Fechner Day · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionDuration (music)Time perceptionStatisticsInterval (graph theory)Magnitude (astronomy)PerceptionMathematicsOffset (computer science)EstimationPsychophysicsAudiologyPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceAcousticsMedicinePhysicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A time interval between the onset and the offset of a continuous sound (filled interval) is often perceived to be longer than a time interval between two successive brief sounds (empty interval) of the same physical duration. The present study examined the occurrence of such phenomenon, sometimes called the filled duration illusion, for time intervals of 40-520 ms with the method of adjustment and the method of magnitude estimation. When the method of adjustment was used, the filled duration illusion appeared clearly for a few participants, while it did not appear for the majority of participants. With magnitude estimation, the filled duration illusion was more likely to occur. The amounts of the illusion did not correlate between the two methods, and it was suggested that even for the same participant, the perception of the empty and the filled intervals can be influenced by the experimental methods.

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 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.318 · 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