MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970833607 · doi:10.1121/1.3248914

Auditory feedback and articulatory timing.

2009· article· en· W1970833607 on OpenAlexaff
Takashi Mitsuya, Ewen MacDonald, Kevin G. Munhall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditory feedbackSpeech productionHeadphonesVoice-onset timeSpeech recognitionComputer scienceAcousticsPsychologyAudiologyVowelPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Talkers listen to their own voice while they speak and use that feedback to monitor and control fine details of speech production. When auditory feedback is perturbed in real time, talkers spontaneously alter their speech production to compensate for the perturbation. Most research using real-time altered auditory feedback has focused on spectral manipulations of vowels with little attention devoted to temporal manipulations of consonants. In the present study, we examine the role of acoustic feedback in control of voice onset time (VOT). Utterances of the words “tip” and “dip” were recorded from native English speakers, and several representative productions were selected for each speaker. After this, talkers were asked to repeatedly produce either tip or dip. During these productions a real-time processing system was used to provide modified feedback through headphones. When talkers said one word, they simultaneously heard their own voice saying the other word. Results showed that the speakers compensated for the VOT perturbation such that they lengthened their VOT for /t/ when the VOT of the feedback was shorter (/d/). Based on these results, a comparison of the role of auditory feedback in controlling temporal and spectral aspects of speech production will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207