MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799998534 · doi:10.1121/1.5031123

Assessing the importance of several acoustic properties to the perception of spontaneous speech

2018· article· en· W2799998534 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan G. Podlubny, Terrance M. Nearey, Grzegorz Kondrak, Benjamin V. Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDuration (music)Speech recognitionComputer sciencePerceptionSpeech perceptionAcousticsContext (archaeology)Pitch contourPhoneticsPsychologyLinguisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spoken language manifests itself as change over time in various acoustic dimensions. While it seems clear that acoustic-phonetic information in the speech signal is key to language processing, little is currently known about which specific types of acoustic information are relatively more informative to listeners. This problem is likely compounded when considering reduced speech: Which specific acoustic information do listeners rely on when encountering spoken forms that are highly variable, and often include altered or elided segments? This work explores contributions of spectral shape, f0 contour, target duration, and time varying intensity in the perception of reduced speech. This work extends previous laboratory-speech based perception studies into the realm of casual speech, and also provides support for use of an algorithm that quantifies phonetic reduction. Data suggest the role of spectral shape is extensive, and that its removal degrades signals in a way that hinders recognition severely. Information reflecting f0 contour and target duration both appear to aid the listener somewhat, though their influence seems small compared to that of short term spectral shape. Finally, information about time varying intensity aids the listener more than noise filled gaps, and both aid the listener beyond presentation of acoustic context with duration-matched silence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207