Sensory Preference in Speech Production Revealed by Simultaneous Alteration of Auditory and Somatosensory Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that humans learn and maintain accurate speech by carefully monitoring auditory feedback is widely held. But this view neglects the fact that auditory feedback is highly correlated with somatosensory feedback during speech production. Somatosensory feedback from speech movements could be a primary means by which cortical speech areas monitor the accuracy of produced speech. We tested this idea by placing the somatosensory and auditory systems in competition during speech motor learning. To do this, we combined two speech-learning paradigms to simultaneously alter somatosensory and auditory feedback in real time as subjects spoke. Somatosensory feedback was manipulated by using a robotic device that altered the motion path of the jaw. Auditory feedback was manipulated by changing the frequency of the first formant of the vowel sound and playing back the modified utterance to the subject through headphones. The amount of compensation for each perturbation was used as a measure of sensory reliance. All subjects were observed to correct for at least one of the perturbations, but auditory feedback was not dominant. Indeed, some subjects showed a stable preference for either somatosensory or auditory feedback during speech.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".