MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280600320 · doi:10.1121/10.0010447

More detectable, less annoying: Temporal variation in amplitude envelope and spectral content improves auditory interface efficacy

2022· article· en· W4280600320 on OpenAlexafffund
Liam Foley, Joseph J. Schlesinger, Michael Schutz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnnoyanceActive listeningInterface (matter)AcousticsTone (literature)Computer scienceEnvelope (radar)HarmonicsSpeech recognitionAudiologyLoudnessPsychologyPhysicsCommunicationTelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory interfaces, such as auditory alarms, are useful tools for human computer interaction. Unfortunately, poor detectability and annoyance inhibit the efficacy of many interface sounds. Here, it is shown in two ways how moving beyond the traditional simplistic temporal structures of normative interface sounds can significantly improve auditory interface efficacy. First, participants rated tones with percussive amplitude envelopes as significantly less annoying than tones with flat amplitude envelopes. Crucially, this annoyance reduction did not come with a detection cost as percussive tones were detected more often than flat tones-particularly, at relatively low listening levels. Second, it was found that reductions in the duration of a tone's harmonics significantly lowered its annoyance without a commensurate reduction in detection. Together, these findings help inform our theoretical understanding of detection and annoyance of sound. In addition, they offer promising original design considerations for auditory interfaces.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207