MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2622711669 · doi:10.1121/1.4987839

The effects of diffuse noise and artificial reverberation on listener weighting of interaural cues in sound localization

2017· article· en· W2622711669 on OpenAlexaff
Tran M Nguyen, Ewan A. Macpherson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReverberationAcousticsWidebandMonauralWeightingAnechoic chamberNoise (video)Interaural time differenceBinaural recordingA-weightingSound localizationHeadphonesPink noiseMathematicsComputer scienceSpeech recognitionPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability of interaural time and level difference (ITD, ILD) sound location cues can be degraded by noise or reverberation. In this study, we determined how weighting of ITD and ILD varied with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the presence of interaurally uncorrelated background noise and with direct-to-reverberant ratio (DRR) in the presence of artificial reverberation (generated by convolving the target signal with an interaurally uncorrelated pair of impulse responses created by multiplying Gaussian noise with a decaying exponential, RT60 = 500 ms). Wideband (0.5-16 kHz) 100-ms noise-burst targets were presented over headphones using individual head-related transfer functions. ITD and ILD were manipulated by attenuating or delaying the sound at one ear (by up to 300 μs or 10 dB), and cue weighting was computed by comparing localization response bias to imposed cue bias. Wideband (0.5-16 kHz) and low-pass (0.5-2 kHz) noise and reverberation and SNRs and DRRs from -5 to + 20 dB were used. ITD dominated in quiet, anechoic conditions. ITD was downweighted and ILD upweighted with decreasing SNR for both noises. Only downweighting of ITD and upweighting of ILD were associated with decreasing DRR in wideband and low-pass reverberation, respectively. In general, listeners increased the relative weighting of ILD in more adverse listening conditions.

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)0.005
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→