MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W29559776 · doi:10.2147/ijn.s152461

DECRUITMENT OF THE PERCEPTION OF CHANGING SOUND INTENSITY FOR SIMULATED SELF-MOTION

2007· article· en· W29559776 on OpenAlexaff
D.C. Zikovitz, Bill Kapralos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nanomedicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensity (physics)Sound intensityPerceptionAcousticsFalling (accident)Sound (geography)Motion (physics)PhenomenonAccelerationPsychologyAudiologyComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the many cues that could be used to gauge self-motion, auditory cues seem to be the least studied. Lis-teners could potentially use either a sweep of rising sound intensity to judge their self-motion towards an object or con-versely use a sweep of falling sound intensity to judge their motion away from an object. Whether the sweep is rising or falling the listener must judge both the change in inten-sity across the sweep, and the temporal span of the sweep. Studies indicate that sweeping intensities are misperceived so that the sound intensity at the end of the sweep is judged differently than when the final sound intensity is presented alone. Although there is ongoing discussion as to whether the induced fading is greater for rising sound intensity as op-posed to falling sound intensity, both phenomena affect the perception of self-motion. This paper presents a series of experiments that examined self-motion perception with au-ditory cues. Results confirm the finding of decruitment for a sweeping broadband sound source that decreases at vari-ous rates of acceleration. Furthermore, the phenomenon of decruitment was greatly diminished at higher accelerations indicating that this phenomenon is likely correlated to the lowest rate at which listeners can perceive a change in in-tensity. 1.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NanomedicineSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207