Auditory feedback perturbation of vowel production: A comparative study of congenitally blind speakers and sighted speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies with congenitally blind speakers show that visual deprivation yields increased auditory discrimination abilities as well as reduced amplitude of labial movements involved in vowel production, compared with sighted speakers. To further investigate the importance of auditory and visual feedback in speech, a study of auditory perturbation of rounded vowels was conducted in congenitally blind and sighted French speakers. Acoustic and articulatory (electromagnetic articulography) recordings from ten congenitally blind speakers and ten sighted speakers were obtained during the production of the French rounded vowel /ø/. All participants were first asked to produce the vowel repeatedly in a normal condition, i.e., with regular auditory feedback. In the perturbed condition, participants received, in real-time through headsets, an altered version of their speech, in which F2 was gradually increased up to 500 Hz. To compensate for this perturbation, speakers had to enhance lip protrusion and/or tongue retraction. These adaptive maneuvers should have been concurrent with auditory perception abilities. Preliminary results show that congenitally blind speakers gave greater weight to auditory perception than their sighted peers, while compensating differently for the perturbations. These findings support the hypothesis that vision plays a significant role in the implementation of phonological targets.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".