A Biomechanical Modeling Study of the Effects of the Orbicularis Oris Muscle and Jaw Posture on Lip Shape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors' general aim is to use biomechanical models of speech articulators to explore how possible variations in anatomical structure contribute to differences in articulatory strategies and phone systems across human populations. Specifically, they investigated 2 issues: (a) the link between lip muscle anatomy and variability in lip gestures and (b) the constraints of coupled lip/jaw biomechanics on jaw posture in labial sounds. METHOD: The authors used a model coupling the jaw, tongue, and face. First, the influence of the orbicularis oris (OO) anatomical implementation was analyzed by assessing how changes in depth (from epidermis to the skull) and peripheralness (proximity to the lip horn center) affected lip shaping. Second, the capability of the lip/jaw system to generate protrusion and rounding, or labial closure, was evaluated for different jaw heights. RESULTS: Results showed that a peripheral and moderately deep OO implementation is most appropriate for protrusion and rounding; a superficial implementation facilitates closure; protrusion and rounding require a high jaw position; and closure is achievable for various jaw heights. CONCLUSIONS: Models provide objective information regarding possible links between anatomical and speech production variability across humans. Comparisons with experimental data will illustrate how motor control and cultural factors cope with these constraints.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".