Durée perceptuelle correspondante des tons plats et percussifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extensive literature on duration assessment generally uses tones with clear onsets and offsets. However, simplistic sounds can fail to evoke the same processes used when listening to sounds with time varying amplitude envelopes (Schutz & Gillard, 2020). Researchers use simplistic sounds to control for extraneous variables between different sounds, with one of these being duration perception. To facilitate future research on the duration assessment of time varying tones, here we explore the ratio at which constant amplitude ‘flat’ and varying amplitude ‘percussive’ tones are perceived as the same duration. We used an adaptive staircase procedure, which presented flat and percussive tones in pairs; participants then stated which tone sounded longer in duration. Each response changed the duration difference on subsequent trials and continued until responses converged around a point, with convergence defined as four consecutive reversals in response direction. One instance of these trials constituted a single staircase; we then calculated the millisecond point of subjective equality (PSE) between flat and percussive tones by finding the average point of convergence between multiple, interleaved staircases starting above and below an initial duration. We found a ratio of flat to percussive duration of approximately 1.67, though with high variance. Consistent, low-variance results from a homogenous (same envelope comparisons) version of the experiment suggest that the adaptive procedure is not the cause. As a result, future iterations will involve collecting large amounts of data from a smaller sample in a controlled lab setting, thereby reducing individual differences and extraneous variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".