The effect of vocal tract parameters on aspiration noise discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research showed that aspiration noise difference limens in moderately breathy /a/ vowels decreased as the spectral slope of the glottal source spectrum became increasingly steep [Kreiman and Gerratt, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(1), 492-500 (2012)]. The current study investigated whether discrimination of aspiration noise levels was affected by differences in spectral shape due to vowel quality (/æ/ and /i/) and speaker identity (three male speakers) when the slope of the glottal source spectrum was fixed. The results showed that discrimination performance was worse overall for /i/ than /æ/, but the result may have resulted from relatively poor performance for the /i/ vowel of one speaker. Acoustic analyses of the stimuli were performed to estimate the association between acoustic properties and the perceptual outcomes. The results showed that both the smoothed cepstral peak prominence and the harmonic energy level between 2 and 5 kHz may account for the observed differences in aspiration noise discrimination among speakers within each vowel, but not for differences between vowel categories. It is possible that the relationship between the aspiration noise discrimination and aforementioned acoustic properties may be modulated by the spectral distribution of energy across frequency.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".