MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2728422682

The Integration of Pitch and Time in Music Perception

2009· dissertation· en· W2728422682 on OpenAlexaff
J.B. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyComputer scienceSpeech recognitionNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine experiments were conducted to explore pitch-time integration in music. In Experiments 1-6, listeners heard a musical context followed by probe events that varied in pitch class and temporal position. When evaluating the goodness-of-fit of the probe (Experiment 1), listeners’ ratings showed more influence of pitch class than of temporal position. The tonal and metric hierarchies contributed additively to ratings. Listeners again rated goodness-of-fit in Experiment 2, but with instructions to ignore pitch. Temporal position dominated ratings, but an effect of pitch consistent with the tonal hierarchy remained. Again, these two factors contributed additively. A speeded classification task in Experiments 3 and 4 revealed asymmetric interference. When making a temporal judgment (Experiment 3), listeners exhibited a response bias consistent with the tonal hierarchy, but the metric hierarchy did not affect their pitch judgments (Experiment 4). Experiments 5 and 6 ruled out alternative explanations based on the presence of pitch classes and temporal positions in the context, unequal numbers of pitch classes and temporal positions in the probe events, and differential difficulty of pitch versus temporal classification. Experiments 7-9 examined the factors that modulate the effect of temporal variation on pitch judgments. In Experiment 7, a standard tone was followed by a tonal context and then a comparison tone. Participants judged whether the comparison tone was in the key of the context or whether it was higher or lower than the standard tone. For both tasks, the comparison tone occurred early, on time, or late with respect to temporal expectancies established by the context. Temporal variation did not affect accuracy in either task. Experiment 8 used the pitch height comparison task, and had either a tonal or an atonal context. Temporal variation affected accuracy only for atonal contexts. Experiment 9 replicated these results and controlled for potential confounds. The findings imply that the tonal contexts found in typical Western music bias attention toward pitch, increasing the salience of this dimension at the expense of time. Pitch salience likely arises from long-term exposure to the statistical properties of Western music and is not linked to the relative discriminability of pitch and time.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→