MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244285692 · doi:10.1121/1.4799303

Boundary effects on the illusory continuity of an interrupted glide through a notched noise.

2013· article· en· W4244285692 on OpenAlexaff
Valter Ciocca, Nicholas R. Haywood

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Masking (illustration)Offset (computer science)PerceptionAcousticsPsychologyBackward maskingAudiologyMathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the illusory continuity of an interrupted frequency glide through a notched-noise burst. A 2I-2AFC procedure was used to measure detection of the (target) portion of the frequency glide that overlapped in time with the noise. The portions of the glide preceding and following the noise (flankers) could be present or absent. The center frequency of the notch coincided with either the frequency end-point of the flanker that preceded the noise, or the onset frequency of the flanker that followed the noise. A control condition with a wide-band noise burst (absent notch) was also included. Performance was poorest in the absent notch condition, and was significantly poorer with present than with absent flankers. This suggests that listeners perceptually restored the missing target when flankers were present. Performance was also less accurate (indicating stronger illusory continuity) when the notch was centered on the end-point of the flanker that preceded the noise. These results suggest that the masking of the onset of the flanker following the noise provides a stronger cue to the perception of continuity than the masking of the offset of the flanker that precedes the noise.

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)0.007
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
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207