standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | auditory signal detection in gaussian noise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The theoretical curves were fitted to the data by eye rather than by a least-squares procedure. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every parameter read off the theoretical curves: THE CURVES WERE FITTED BY EYE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The displacement values are only as accurate as the report's noise spectrum-level measurements, themselves accurate to about 0.8 dB. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the displacement values: THESE VALUES ARE, OF COURSE, ONLY AS ACCURATE AS OUR NOISE SPECTRUM-LEVEL MEASUREMENTS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | A planned statistical analysis, for which the number of runs per signal had been deliberately varied, was never completed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the statistical analysis the design was built for: THIS ANALYSIS PROVED MORE LENGTHY THAN REWARDING AND WAS ABANDONED - the runs per signal were varied to support a result the paper does not contain | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The zero point of the sensitivity scale is set arbitrarily, because the scale itself is stated to be unknown and abstract. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a d' value as an absolute quantity: the paper states the scale is unknown and abstract and its zero is set arbitrarily | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Fixing the variance at one is described as choosing a unit of measurement, not as an empirical finding. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the unit-variance assumption as a property of the observer: the paper says it is a choice of measurement unit on an arbitrary scale | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The definition of the detection situation is stipulated for this report, with the author noting other formulations are possible. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the detection situation as a standard construct: the report stipulates one of several possible formulations for its own use | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Only some of the weaknesses identified in the existing models are claimed to be removed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: detection theory as resolving the criticisms of earlier models: the abstract claims only some weaknesses are eliminable | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The goodness-of-fit test used is stated to be inapplicable when the data points are not equally spaced. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the fit test on unequally spaced data: the report says makeshift repairs may be needed or the test considered inapplicable | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | Introducing catch-trials turns the psychophysical experiment into a detection situation, so the whole apparatus of detection theory can be applied to psychophysical problems. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | The likelihood-ratio distribution functions already computed for signals in uniform gaussian noise are taken over directly to derive the psychophysical function for a human listener. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | The sampling theorem is imported so that a band-limited receiver input over an interval can be represented as a finite set of 2TW random variables. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | every measurement replicated on each of two subjects, HF and PFL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: an idiosyncrasy of one observer's hearing standing in for a general detection result - two subjects is small, and replicating everything on both is what the paper can say · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | d' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: d' | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | detectability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detectability | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | detection situation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detection situation | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | forced-choice method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: forced-choice method | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | detection theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detection theory | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | traditional psychophysical models Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: traditional psychophysical models | concepts[5] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | subject's criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subject's criterion | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | detectors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detectors | concepts[7] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: value | concepts[8] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | forced-choice → yes-no Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. PROVED INDISTINGUISHABLE - the FORMAL form / The strongest version of the claim we cannot express: not 'we could not tell them apart' but 'they cannot be told apart', established by argument and holding for a whole class of methods. THE CASE THAT JOINS THE TWO GAPS. 'do not differ at all as far as the fundamental theorem is concerned' is a non-difference SCOPED TO A NAMED RESPECT. We cannot say a relation fails, and we cannot say what a relation is relative to; this one clause needs both. If differs in is built, design against this sentence. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| unhoused_relations | detectors → the paper's own definition of detection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A METALINGUISTIC SELF-CAUTION, AND THE VOCABULARY HAS NO TYPE FOR A CLAIM ABOUT A WORD. `Quotation withheld` The author uses a term his own definition forbids and says so. The relation is not between two concepts in the paper - it is between A USAGE and THE DEFINITION THAT USAGE VIOLATES. I first wrote `detectors --distinct-from--> value` and the gate refused it for want of a differentiation cue, correctly: those two are not comparable things, and the edge was a bad rendering of a real observation. The observation survives here; the edge does not. Note that the term reaches signal-detection engineering with the caution stripped off. Reached 2026-08-26 by the project. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | d' - a sensitivity measure on an unknown abstract scale, whose zero point is assigned by convention rather than measured Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | detectability - the name given to the probability of a correct response, not to a property of the observer alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | threshold - a momentary quantity treated as a random variable, taking a different value on each trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `the subject's criterion` - A NAME THAT MAKES A PREDICTION, AND THE PAPER SAYS SO AS IT COINS IT. `the central-tendency term, c, is called "the subject's criterion." This suggests a "psychological" quantity which may, as psychological quantities sometimes do, change its value from psychophysical experiment to experiment.` The name is a parameter of a model; calling it the subject's turns a fitted constant into a property of a person, and the paper flags the consequence rather than the word. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `detectors` - THE AUTHOR USES A WORD HIS OWN DEFINITION FORBIDS, AND LABELS IT AS LOOSE. `Quotation withheld` Detection is defined in this paper through payoff, and a machine has no payoffs. The term survives into signal-detection engineering with the caution stripped off - which is the ordinary fate of a hedged coinage. NO EDGE PROPOSED. The natural endpoints would be `detectors` and `organisms`, and the gate refused `detectors --distinct-from--> value` for want of a differentiation cue - correctly, since those two are not comparable things. The claim is metalinguistic (a word is being used loosely), and the sense layer is where a claim about a word belongs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `value` - A TECHNICAL TERM PINNED BY AN EVERYDAY ANALOGY INSTEAD OF A DEFINITION. `Quotation withheld` No utility function, no axioms - an appeal to shared usage, in a paper that is otherwise formal to the point of listing its notation. The looseness is deliberate and local. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Tanner and Swets' model and traditional threshold/criterion psychophysical models Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Peterson and Birdsall (15) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Fletcher's critical-band theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | detection theory —contrasted-with→ traditional psychophysical models Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says weaknesses of the traditional models are eliminable by detection theory; contrasted-with is loose. | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | least squares Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: least squares | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | proportion of variance explained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: proportion of variance explained | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The subjects were not ideal detectors. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Once the ideal-detector curve was shifted rightward by a single constant, it fitted the observed psychophysical functions closely, accounting for 99.3 per cent of the variance in the best case and 97.3 per cent in the worst. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Apart from a constant loss of about 13.5 db in sensitivity, the subjects' detection behaviour matched the ideal detector's predicted psychophysical function for pure tones. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | For two-component signals at 1060 and 1100 cps, detectability was set by the total energy of the signal, exactly as for the ideal detector, and the energy-summation prediction accounted for 96.5 per cent of the observed variance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | For the 500+1100 cps signals the energy-summation prediction accounted for only 25 per cent of the variance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Predicting the 500+1100 cps two-tone detectability from the better single component alone accounted for 93.5 per cent of the variance and a t-test found no difference between that component's detectability and the two-tone detectability. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Two-component signals at 500 and 540 cps fell between the two extremes, with the energy-summation prediction accounting for 73.6 per cent of the variance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | For the 1060/1100 and 500/540 pairs, adding the weaker component raised the detectability of the whole signal above that of the stronger component alone, a difference that was highly significant. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The 13.5 db loss cannot be internal noise adding linearly to external noise, because detection accuracy stays constant whenever the external signal-to-noise ratio is constant, no matter how loud the noise. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Auditory filters near 1100 cps have wider bandwidths than those near 500 cps. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | detectability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detectability | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ideal detector Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ideal detector | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | symmetrical payoff matrix Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: symmetrical payoff matrix | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | two-category forced-choice method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two-category forced-choice method | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | uniform gaussian noise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: uniform gaussian noise | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | equivalent rectangular bandwidth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: equivalent rectangular bandwidth | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | detectability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detectability | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 13 db — how much less sensitive the subjects were than the ideal detector, as stated in the abstract Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 75 per cent at r = 1.4 — accuracy of the ideal detector at a signal-energy to noise-spectrum-level ratio of 1.4 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 99.3 / 97.3 per cent — variance in the psychophysical data accounted for by the best- and worst-fitting displaced ideal-detector curves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 96. 5 per cent — variance in observed two-tone detectability (1060+1100 cps) accounted for by the total-energy prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 73. 6 per cent — variance accounted for by the total-energy prediction for the 500+540 cps pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 25 per cent — variance accounted for by the total-energy prediction for the 500+1100 cps pair Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 93.5 per cent — variance accounted for when the 500+1100 cps two-tone detectability is predicted from the more detectable component alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 61 — total number of signals whose detectability was measured Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 810 — total number of experimental runs made Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | two — subjects, both male MIT students, on whom all measurements were replicated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 180 trials / 10 minutes — length of a single run, each trial lasting 3 1/3 seconds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | -66 db — measured noise spectrum-level near 500 and 1100 cps, accurate to about 0.8 db Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.