Kinematic Analyses of Speech, Orofacial Nonspeech, and Finger Movements in Stuttering and Nonstuttering Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigated the hypothesis that neuromotor differences between individuals who stutter and individuals who do not stutter are not limited to the movements involved in speech production. Kinematic data were obtained from gender- and age-matched stuttering (n = 10) and nonstuttering (n = 10) adults during speech movements, orofacial nonspeech movements, and finger movements. All movements were performed in 4 conditions differing in sequence length and location of the target movement within the sequence. Results revealed statistically significant differences between the stuttering and nonstuttering individuals on several measures of lip and jaw closing (but not opening) movements during perceptually fluent speech. The magnitude of these differences varied across different levels of utterance length (larger differences during shorter utterances) and across different locations of the target movement within an utterance (larger differences close to the beginning). Results further revealed statistically significant differences between the stuttering and nonstuttering groups in finger flexion (but not extension) movement duration and peak velocity latency. Overall, findings suggest that differences between stuttering and nonstuttering individuals are not confined to the sensorimotor processes underlying speech production or even movements of the orofacial system in general. Rather, it appears that the groups show generalized differences in the duration of certain goal-directed movements across unrelated motor systems.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it