Perceptual thresholds for non-ideal diffuse field reverberation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to understand listeners' sensitivity to directional variations in non-ideal diffuse field reverberation. An ABX discrimination test was conducted using a semi-spherical 28-loudspeaker array; perceptual thresholds were estimated by systematically varying the level of a segment of loudspeakers for lateral, height, and frontal conditions. The overall energy was held constant using a gain compensation scheme. When compared to an ideal diffuse field, the perceptual threshold for detection is -2.5 dB for the lateral condition, -6.8 dB for the height condition, and -3.2 dB for the frontal condition. Measurements of the experimental stimuli were analyzed using a Head and Torso Simulator as well as with opposing cardioid microphones aligned on the three Cartesian axes. Additionally, opposing cardioid measurements made in an acoustic space demonstrate that level differences corresponding to the perceptual thresholds can be found in practice. These results suggest that non-ideal diffuse field reverberation may be a previously unrecognized component of spatial impression.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".