The effect of rhythm on inter-gestural coupling of onset and vowel gestures and predictive timing in stuttering
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• Inter-gestural timing differs in persons who stutter (PWS). • Consonant-vowel (CV) gestures are coupled more tightly in PWS. • The synchronization of speech with rhythmic cues varies depending on the rhythm type. • PWS exhibit alterations in predictive timing. • Finger tapping stabilizes the speech motor system of PWS. In this study we investigate articulatory timing in fluent speech production in persons who stutter (PWS) and persons who do not stutter (PWNS) by focusing on consonant–vowel (CV)-timing, which refers to the coupling of onset consonant and vowel gestures, as well as on predictive timing, which describes the synchronization of the speech onset to a rhythmic event. These two timing mechanisms are particularly interesting to investigate in relation to stuttering, given that CV-timing is especially challenging for PWS and that they exhibit differences in predictive timing related to speech-motor and manual-motor tasks, suggesting that disturbances in inter-gestural coordination and auditory-motor integration may contribute to stuttering. To shed further light on this, we examine CV-timing and predictive timing under different rhythmic conditions. Twenty German-speaking adults (10 PWS and 10 PWNS) were recorded using electromagnetic articulography (EMA). Participants produced target words that started with a bilabial onset, followed by a vowel (/a/, /o/, or /u/) and were embedded in a carrier phrase in four different conditions: Unpaced (speaking), Tapping (speaking while concurrently tapping), Metronome (synchronizing speech to a metronome), and Metronome+Tapping (speaking to a metronome while concurrently tapping). We found evidence for both CV-timing and predictive timing differences between PWS and PWNS. Our results suggest that in general, PWS time CV gestures closer together. However, CV-timing differences were linked to condition in an unexpected way. As to predictive timing, PWS initiated their speech later to a metronome beat than PWNS but they did not differ when timing speech to their own finger tapping, indicating that motor-pacing may stabilize the speech motor system of PWS. In the Metronome+Tapping condition, the groups appeared to rely on different rhythmic cues. While PWNS timed their speech more towards the metronome beat, PWS synchronized their speech onset closer to the finger tap. We discuss that this difference could result from differences in CV-timing. Furthermore, the potential for future research on the interplay of non-verbal and verbal motor systems and the possible benefit for the stuttering population is discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle