Surveying the sounds used in auditory perception research: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sound’s decay conveys useful information to listeners, such as the materials as well as the force involved in the impact event (Gygi, Kidd, & Watson, 2004). Yet its role is often overlooked in auditory perception experiments employing trapezoidally-shaped “flat” amplitude envelopes. My team has documented that time varying sounds can lead to considerably different understandings of perceptual organization in tasks ranging from audio-visual integration (Schutz, 2009) and duration assessment (Vallet, Shore, & Schutz, 2014) to memory recall (Schutz, Stefanucci, Baum & Roth, 2017). To establish a baseline understanding of the range of sounds used in auditory perception research, we analyzed 215 experiments from 111 articles published the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (JASA) using methodology similar to my team’s previous survey of the journal Music Perception (Vaisberg & Schutz, 2014). Here we found 78% of auditory perception stimuli exhibited “flat” amplitude envelopes, with clicks/click trains accounting for an additional 7.8%. Only 2.8% exhibited the kinds of complex changes in amplitude found in natural sounds. Although the remaining 11.2% used sounds with some time varying amplitude information, this variation lacked any real-world referent (i.e., amplitude modulated tones, “pyramid shaped” tones with matched rise/fall times, etc.). Therefore less than 3% of the sounds exhibited the kinds of complex changes in amplitude found in (and informative about) natural sounds. Moreover 86% of stimuli used in our survey exhibited no amplitude variation beyond abrupt onsets/offsets. This distribution is broadly consistent with my team’s surveys of other journals, indicating the under-assessment of sounds with complex amplitude variations is wide spread issue within psychological acoustics. I will discuss the implications of this previously undocumented challenge, as well as highlight implications for future research opportunities
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".