MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180744963 · doi:10.1051/aacus/2022008

A comparative study of eight human auditory models of monaural processing

2022· article· en· W3180744963 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Osses, Léo Varnet, Laurel H. Carney, Torsten Dau, Ian C. Bruce, Sarah Verhulst, Piotr Majdak

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Acustica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersHorizon 2020Horizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNovo Nordisk FondenNational Institutes of HealthAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMonauralInferior colliculusCochlear nucleusAuditory systemComputational auditory scene analysisComputer scienceSpeech recognitionToolboxAuditory pathwaysPerceptionFilter bankNeuroscienceFilter (signal processing)PsychologyBrainstemNucleusComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of auditory models have been developed using diverging approaches, either physiological or perceptual, but they share comparable stages of signal processing, as they are inspired by the same constitutive parts of the auditory system. We compare eight monaural models that are openly accessible in the Auditory Modelling Toolbox. We discuss the considerations required to make the model outputs comparable to each other, as well as the results for the following model processing stages or their equivalents: Outer and middle ear, cochlear filter bank, inner hair cell, auditory nerve synapse, cochlear nucleus, and inferior colliculus. The discussion includes a list of recommendations for future applications of auditory models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa AcusticaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207