Bibliographic record
Abstract
While music is primarily experienced through audition, many aspects of music can also be experienced through somatosensation. Vibrotactile stimulation occurs when a tactile stimulus displaces the skin at a specific carrier frequency. When the carrier is frequency modulated, it can create a complex waveform and when it is amplitude modulated, it can create a rhythmic pulse. These vibrotactile aspects of music have long been recognized as important by music performers, providing a valuable source of non-auditory feedback that may support musical expression. Critically, these same vibrotactile aspects of music may also support the perception of music and voice in individuals with hearing loss. This paper will provide an overview of research conducted over the last decade that has clarified the aspects of music and voice that may be perceived through somatosensation along with some insight into neural underpinnings of these perceptions. Specific features of music considered will include pitch, rhythm, and timbre. Also considered will be the manner by which sensitivity to these features may change as a function of hearing loss, experience, and the properties of stimulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".