Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research suggests that pitch height can influence the perceived tempo of speech and music, such that higher-pitched signals seem faster than lower-pitched ones. However, previous studies have analyzed perceived tempo across a relatively limited range of fundamental frequencies. To investigate whether this higher-equals-faster illusion generalizes across the wider range of human hearing, we conducted a series of five experiments. We asked participants to compare the tempo of repeating tones from six different octaves and with 15 different interonset intervals to a metronomic standard tempo. In Experiments 1-3, we observed an inverted U-shaped effect of pitch on perceived tempo, with the perceived tempo of piano tones peaking between A4 (440 Hz) and A5 (880 Hz) and decreasing at lower and higher frequencies. This bias was consistent across base tempos and was only slightly attenuated by synchronous tapping with the repeating tones. Experiment 4 tested synthetic complex tones to verify that this nonlinearity generalizes beyond the piano timbre and that it was not related to the presence of low-frequency mechanical noise present in our piano tones. Experiment 5 revealed that the decrease in perceived tempo at extremely high octaves can be abolished by exposing participants to only high-pitched tones. Together, our results suggest that perceived tempo depends more on the relative pitch within a context than on absolute pitch and that tempo biases may invert or taper off beyond a two-octave range. We relate this context-dependence to human vocal ranges and propose that illusory tempo effects are strongest within pitch ranges consistent with human vocalization.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".