MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319659259 · doi:10.1002/tee.23773

Effects of Transient Levels of Speech on Auditory Attention Decoding Performance in a <scp>Two‐Speaker</scp> Paradigm

2023· article· en· W4319659259 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mai Tanaka, Fumina Mori, Kiyoshi Kotani, Yasuhiko Jimbo

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTateisi Science and Technology Foundation
KeywordsSpeech recognitionComputer scienceCoarticulationDecoding methodsStimulus (psychology)SalientArtificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive psychologyVowelAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stimulus reconstruction decodes the listener's auditory attention through the greater neural tracking of the attended speech over the unattended stream. While acoustic features of speech are vital to the listening task and comprehension, very few studies have analyzed the effects of acoustic features of speech on stimulus reconstruction. This paper investigates approaches of stimulus reconstruction, where correlations between the neurally decoded and actual speech envelopes are calculated from specific speech segments, varying in transient levels as measured by spectral transition measures. Additionally, two methods of calculating correlations were adopted enabling analysis of the effects of relatively lower and higher frequency components of the speech envelope. Correlation after concatenation analysis showed that STM level of only the attended speech affected decoding performance, hinting at a top‐down attentional effect. A bottom‐up effect of salient aspects of speech momentarily dominating neural entrainment was also inferred from the weighted mean of multiple correlations. Future studies on the link between acoustic features of speech and its corresponding neural tracking behavior are suggested. © 2023 Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic EngineeringSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207