MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896609196 · doi:10.1121/1.5068180

Thresholds of noise in harmonic series maskers

2018· article· en· W2896609196 on OpenAlexaff
Ilse B. Labuschagne, Valter Ciocca

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmonicsAcousticsNoise (video)HarmonicMasking (illustration)Series (stratigraphy)Fundamental frequencyMathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have investigated the detection of pure tones and harmonic series in noise, but far fewer studied the perception of noise in harmonic series. One such study [Gockel, Moore and Patterson, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 111(6), 2759–2770 (2002)] demonstrated that the masking thresholds of noise in harmonic series maskers were affected by the fundamental frequency (F0) and the overall level of the series, and by the relative phase of the harmonic components. The maskers used by Gockel et al. comprised unresolved harmonics (10th and higher harmonics below 5 kHz) for which F0 and frequency range covaried. The current study investigated noise detection for three non-overlapping spectral bands of equal auditory filter bandwidths (ERBs). Bands included either resolved harmonics (B1), unresolved harmonics (B3), or both resolved and unresolved harmonics (B2). Masker F0 and overall level were also varied. A Bayesian linear mixed-effects analysis showed that noise detection was better for higher F0s in B1 and B2, and that a higher presentation level resulted in a small improvement in noise detection in B2. Noise detection was better for higher presentation levels in B3. The findings will be discussed in relation to predictions of auditory processing models [Patterson, Allerhand, Giguère, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98(4), 1890–1894 (1995)].

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · 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→