Probing the independence of formant control using altered auditory feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two auditory feedback perturbation experiments were conducted to examine the nature of control of the first two formants in vowels. In the first experiment, talkers heard their auditory feedback with either F1 or F2 shifted in frequency. Talkers altered production of the perturbed formant by changing its frequency in the opposite direction to the perturbation but did not produce a correlated alteration of the unperturbed formant. Thus, the motor control system is capable of fine-grained independent control of F1 and F2. In the second experiment, a large meta-analysis was conducted on data from talkers who received feedback where both F1 and F2 had been perturbed. A moderate correlation was found between individual compensations in F1 and F2 suggesting that the control of F1 and F2 is processed in a common manner at some level. While a wide range of individual compensation magnitudes were observed, no significant correlations were found between individuals' compensations and vowel space differences. Similarly, no significant correlations were found between individuals' compensations and variability in normal vowel production. Further, when receiving normal auditory feedback, most of the population exhibited no significant correlation between the natural variation in production of F1 and F2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".