Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech production is dependent on both auditory and somatosensory feedback. Although audition may appear to be the dominant sensory modality in speech production, somatosensory information plays a role that extends from brainstem responses to cortical control. Accordingly, the motor commands that underlie speech movements may have somatosensory as well as auditory goals. Here we provide evidence that, independent of the acoustics, somatosensory information is central to achieving the precision requirements of speech movements. We were able to dissociate auditory and somatosensory feedback by using a robotic device that altered the jaw's motion path, and hence proprioception, without affecting speech acoustics. The loads were designed to target either the consonant- or vowel-related portion of an utterance because these are the major sound categories in speech. We found that, even in the absence of any effect on the acoustics, with learning subjects corrected to an equal extent for both kinds of loads. This finding suggests that there are comparable somatosensory precision requirements for both kinds of speech sounds. We provide experimental evidence that the neural control of stiffness or impedance--the resistance to displacement--provides for somatosensory precision in speech production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".