MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2800585365 · doi:10.1121/1.5036338

Threshold interaural time differences under optimal conditions

2018· article· en· W2800585365 on OpenAlexaff
Mathias Dietz, Sinthiya Thavam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)WaveformAudiologyMathematicsPsychophysicsThreshold limit valueGaussianGaussian noiseAcousticsComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsPerceptionMedicineAlgorithmCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Klumpp and Eady (1956, J Acoust Soc Am 28, p.859-860) reported preliminary data on human sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITD) with various stimuli. At 10 μs ITD the best discrimination of 79% correct was reported for band-pass filtered (150-1700 Hz) noise. Despite the preliminary nature, and presentation methods different from todays, the above is still the best available reference for optimal ITD discrimination. The goal of the current study is to systematically determine the stimulus and the experimental paradigm that results in the smallest threshold ITD and to provide an accurate reference value. We varied seven stimulus and procedure parameters: stimulus waveform, stimulation level, stimulus duration, adaptive versus constant stimulus procedure, alternative-forced-choice (AFC) procedure, inter-stimulus pause duration, and complete waveform versus ongoing ITD. The condition yielding the lowest threshold ITD was Gaussian noise band-pass filtered from 20 to 1400 Hz, presented at 70 dB SPL, with a short inter-stimulus pause of 50 ms, and an interval duration of 0.5 s. Averaged across 8 trained subjects, the threshold ITD for this condition at the 79% correct level was 7 μs. The influence of each parameter will be discussed together with the obstacles of accurately determining this value.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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