Measuring the haptic behavior of an acoustic guitar as perceived by the player by means of a vibrating actuator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two sets of recordings of the vibration produced by plucking the fifth and the second string of an acoustic guitar were acquired using an accelerometer secured to the neck of the instrument. These vibrations were reproduced using a recoil-type vibrating actuator attached at the neck of the guitar. In one of the sets, spectral features of the original recordings were altered. We performed a preliminary study involving nine participants, blindfolded and deafened using earplugs and white noise. They were asked to discriminate, by holding the neck of the instrument with their left hand, between "fake" (actuator-produced) or real vibrations, produced by the experimenter plucking either string two or five. Our aim was to assess if any of the spectral features altered in the second set of recordings increased the recognition rate of actuator-produced vibrations as being "fake". These features, if present, would then be likely to carry crucial information and should be therefore modeled with extreme care in the simulation of the haptic behavior of the instrument. Results show that, at least for string five, we identified one feature (a spectral peak at 548Hz) which, if altered, made the recognition rate as "fake" rise, statistically significantly, from 55% to 89%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".