{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034126984126984124, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015873015873015873, 'mean_word_length': 5.121359223300971, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implicit versus explicit frequency comparisons: two mechanisms of auditory change detection.

Listeners had to compare, with respect to pitch (frequency), a pure tone (T) to a combination of pure tones presented subsequently (C). The elements of C were either synchronous, and therefore difficult to hear out individually, or asynchronous and therefore easier to hear out individually. In the "present/absent" condition, listeners had to judge if T reappeared in C or not. In the "up/down" condition, the task was to judge if the element of C most similar to T was higher or lower than T. When the elements of C were synchronous, the up/down task was found to be easier than the present/absent task; the converse result was obtained when the elements of C were asynchronous. This provides evidence for a duality of auditory comparisons between tone frequencies: (1) implicit comparisons made by automatic and direction-sensitive "frequency-shift detectors"; (2) explicit comparisons more sensitive to the magnitude of a frequency change than to its direction. Another experiment suggests that although the frequency-shift detectors cannot compare effectively two tones separated by an interfering tone, they are largely insensitive to interfering noise bursts.