Testing symmetry of temporal window of integration between vibrotactile and auditory speech information in voiced phoneme perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporal window for enhancement in cross-modal integration is asymmetrical, and does not require synchrony of stimuli for integration; this temporal offset has been linked to differences in relative signal speed as can be seen in audio-visual integration [Munhall et al. 1996. Perc. Psychophys. 58: 351] and audio-aerotactile integration [Gick et al. 2010. Journ. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128: EL342] of speech. However, as vibrotactile cues normally accompany acoustic cues, no difference in signal speed—and no concomitant perceptual asymmetry—is experienced between these two modalities. Contrary to previous research, we predict a symmetrical window for integration. A portable voice-coil transducer is used to produce vibrotactile stimuli, similar to the laryngeal vibrations normally felt in voiced speech. Results of an experiment will be presented in which participants are asked to discriminate between minimal pairs in noise with the device between their thumb and index finger, and in which audio and vibrotactile stimuli are presented in different orders and at different temporal offsets. Implications will be discussed for theories of cross-modal integration. [Funding from NSERC.]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".