Assessment of dynamic spatial release from masking via listener head rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic interaural time-difference (ITD) created by listener head rotation is a potent cue for front/rear sound source localization. In principle this cue could also assist in the segregation of simultaneously presented front and rear sources, particularly when robust high-frequency spectral cues are absent. If so, head rotation might provide dynamic spatial release from masking. We assessed this in a spatial auditory attention task in which multiple different equal-intensity sequences of four spoken digits, low-pass filtered at 1500 Hz, were presented simultaneously—the target sequence from 0 or 180 deg azimuth and distractors from lateral angles of ±22.5 and/or ± 45 deg relative to the target, but in the opposite hemisphere. On each trial, listeners either fixated towards 0 azimuth or oscillated their heads at ∼0.5 Hz with an amplitude of ∼±40 deg. Listeners reported the target sequence heard. In a majority of listeners, there was no benefit of head motion, and therefore no evidence of dynamic spatial release from masking for these stimuli. These results are consistent with those of Culling [J. Exp. Psych. 26, 1760–1769 (2000)], who found that in tone complexes with components smoothly changing in ITD, opposite movement direction for one component was not an effective segregation cue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".