Use of a difference in fundamental frequency and spatial location beyond intelligibility purposes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To extract a voice from a background of competing speakers, the human brain exploits voice pitch (harmonic cues) and spatial location (binaural cues) to separate speakers perceptually, and effectively attenuates the background (anything but the target voice). Quieter backgrounds are generally favourable to attentional and memory systems because they free up cognitive resources otherwise spent decoding speech. Therefore, we hypothesize that harmonic and binaural cues have benefits beyond their known contribution to auditory masking release to higher-level cognitive processes, namely short-term recall. To test this, fifty 10-word lists were presented to adult participants with normal hearing in the presence of a non-linguistic masker. Experiment 1 presented words either on the same fundamental frequency (F0) or on different F0 by three-semitones from the masking tone. Experiment 2 presented words either at the same location or differing by 120° from the masking noise. Our results reaffirm that harmonic and binaural cues facilitate speech intelligibility, but there is a cognitive cost to these masking releases. Contrary to our hypothesis, the use of harmonic and spatial cues was associated with a significant detriment to words' recall, once intelligibility was controlled for.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".