Cutaneous vibration enhances the Lombard Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lombard Effect is traditionally defined as a compensatory vocal response to noise at the ear. Somatosensory feedback is also relevant to speech, however, and may be expected to play a role in the Lombard response and perceived vocal effort. The effect of masking both auditory and laryngeal vibrotactile feedback was assessed in adults without speech or hearing disorders. Autophonic loudness, speech intensity, fundamental frequency, and formant frequencies were measured in each of three conditions: unmasked, auditory masking, and mixed auditory plus somatosensory masking. Neither the slope of the autophonic loudness curve nor the shape of the oral reading intensity contour changed as a function of masking condition. However, the intercept of the autophonic loudness curve and the offset of the intensity contour were greater in the mixed masking as compared to the auditory masking condition, indicating that vibrotactile masking effectively enhanced the Lombard Effect. These findings support the hypothesis that both auditory and somatosensory feedback function to adjust speech gain, without affecting relative production intensity or autophonic loudness perception. As such, the Lombard Effect is proposed to result from a general sensorimotor process rather than from a specific audio-vocal mechanism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".