MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624113939 · doi:10.1121/1.4987364

Perceptual evaluation of multichannel synthesis of moving sounds as a function of rendering strategies and velocity

2017· article· en· W2624113939 on OpenAlexaff
Cédric Camier, Catherine Guastavino

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)LoudspeakerComputer scienceAcousticsActive listeningDiscretizationPerceptionSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysicsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound-field synthesis for static sound sources has been extensively studied. Recently, dynamic sound sources synthesis has garnered increased attention. Classical sound-field rendering strategies discretize dynamic sound-fields as a sequence of stationary snapshots. The use of discrete multichannel arrays can generate further artifacts with moving sounds. Depending on the technique used, this results in an amplitude modulation due to successive loudspeaker contributions (VBAP) or in multiple comb-filtering (WFS) which could affect localization cues, especially at off-centered listening positions. We first present a detailed description of these artifacts. We then introduce a hybrid rendering strategy combining propagation simulation and VBAP at audio rate. We used this rendering strategy and WFS to synthesize white noise revolving around listeners on a circular 48-loudspeaker array. On each trial, participants had to identify the trajectory (circle, triangle, or square) for velocities ranging from 0.5 to 2 revolutions per second. Performance was well above chance level in all conditions. While WFS outperformed the hybrid rendering strategy at low velocities, no significant differences were observed at high velocities for which participants relied on temporal cues rather than spatial cues. The results highlight how artifacts of the rendering strategies interfere with dynamic sound localization at different velocities.

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 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207