Coronal view ultrasound imaging of movement in different segments of the tongue during paced recital: Findings from four normal speakers and a speaker with partial glossectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to quantitatively describe aspects of coronal tongue movement in different anatomical regions of the tongue. Four normal speakers and a speaker with partial glossectomy read four repetitions of a metronome-paced poem. Their tongue movement was recorded in four coronal planes using two-dimensional B-mode ultrasound imaging. Quantitative indicators of tongue function (total distance travelled and concavity) were calculated. In all participants, it was observed that the centre of the tongue travelled greater distances than the lateral free margins. The tongues of the female speakers F1 and F2 travelled greater distances than those of the males M1 and M2. The greatest distances travelled were observed in the speaker with partial glossectomy G. In three of the participants, the greatest cumulative distances were recorded for the anterior tongue (F1, M1, and G) and in the other two (F2 and M2) in the posterior tongue. The concavity measure illustrated that the posterior tongue showed consistent grooving during connected speech, in all speakers. Flatness or convexity of the tongue was mainly observed in the anterior tongue. The study provides the first quantitative description of coronal tongue movement in a complex speech passage. Future research will have to further examine the effects of gender and orofacial morphology on the coronal shape and movement of the tongue.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".