Download data/audio_context_study/README.md from sciminds/same-words-different-judgements: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 2.88 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/sciminds/same-words-different-judgements/resolve/main/data/audio_context_study/README.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/sciminds/same-words-different-judgements/data/audio_context_study/README.md
-
curl -L -o README.md https://huggingface.co/datasets/sciminds/same-words-different-judgements/resolve/main/data/audio_context_study/README.md
Data dictionary: data/audio_context_study/
Follow-up study: does the audio–text difference survive when the
conversation history is heard rather than read? In the main study the
history was shown as text even in the audio condition. Here the history
and the current query are played as audio before the two responses. The
responses are the main study's Kokoro af_heart clips.
| Slug (file suffix) | History rendering | Analyzed raters | Label in the paper |
|---|---|---|---|
audiocontext_onevoice |
one voice (af_heart) for both speakers, with an on-screen speaker indicator |
22 | B1 |
audiocontext |
two voices: user turns am_michael, assistant turns af_heart |
23 | B2 |
- Stimuli: 30 prompts that have conversation history
(
stimuli/audio_context_study/prompts.csv). 15 of them overlap with the voice study. - Session: each participant rated 15 trials plus one attention check, about 47 minutes.
- Coverage: 9–14 raters per clip.
- Ethics and pay: same IRB protocol, Prolific recruitment (US residents), consent flow and pay rate as the main study.
- Pseudonyms:
AC1-###(one-voice) andAC2-###(two-voice), numbered in assignment order. These are different people from the main study and the voice study.
Results built from this folder: the audio-context ablation in Appendix H
and Tables 13–18 (see analysis/README.md).
Files
Each table exists once per slug: <table>_audiocontext_onevoice.csv
(B1) and <table>_audiocontext.csv (B2). The schemas match
data/voice_study/:
| Table | Contents |
|---|---|
long_<slug>_raw.csv |
every rated clip, attention checks included; same columns as long_voice_raw.csv |
long_<slug>_normalized.csv |
analysis input, with the same normalization columns as long_voice_normalized.csv |
participants_<slug>.csv |
one row per participant record, same columns as participants_voice.csv, with demographics blank for records with Analyzed = False. assignedTrialIDs lists PromptIDs, and Arm is blank for records never assigned |
justifications_<slug>.csv |
optional free-text justifications, manually reviewed before release (102 for B1, 100 for B2) |
trial_durations_<slug>.csv |
time on each trial (TaskDurationMs), used for the B1 duration split |
Two differences from the voice study:
Armisaudio_context_onevoiceoraudio_context.- The attention check (PromptID
attention_0) plays clips37_0_0.mp3/37_0_1.mp3, where the voice study playsattention_0_0.mp3/attention_0_1.mp3. In both studies, clip_0is the coherent response and_1the nonsensical one.
No synthetic ratings were collected for these arms.
Provenance
Built with analysis/01_data_prep/04_convert_followup_json_to_csv.py
from the two studies' Firestore exports and anonymized as described in
data/voice_study/README.md.