ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2026
Estimating band importance for environmental sound recognition using deep learninga).
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental sound recognition (ESR) enables listeners to interpret complex acoustic environments, yet the frequency regions that support recognition are poorly understood. This study used deep learning to model ESR in competing speech and estimate frequency band-importance functions (BIFs) underlying recognition performance. Trial-level responses were collected from 46 listeners who identified 25 everyday sounds mixed with speech across a wide range of target-to-masker ratios. Two model variants were evaluated: one trained to mimic human performance, which was trained on soft labels derived from listener responses, and one trained for maximum accuracy, which was trained on ground-truth correct sound labels, enabling a direct comparison between perceptually driven and task-optimal band-importance patterns. The human-trained model closely reproduced key features of human performance, whereas the ground-truth-trained model exceeded human accuracy and showed highly reliable performance across cross-validation folds. BIFs were estimated by bandstop filtering the target signal and quantifying the resulting drop in recognition accuracy. Both model variants yielded reproducible BIFs with five prominent peaks (∼0.43, 0.77, 1.46, 2.6, and 9.7 kHz), largely driven by subsets of sounds having sharply tuned spectral dependence. This convergence across training objectives suggests that human performance closely reflects the task-optimal frequencies for segregating environmental sounds from speech maskers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.