MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994691897 · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/025)

The Effects of Masseter Tendon Vibration on Nonspeech Oral Movements and Vowel Gestures

2001· article· en· W1994691897 on OpenAlexafffund
Torrey M. Loucks, Luc F. De Nil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProprioceptionTendonAudiologyGestureKinematicsVowelMotor controlVibrationPhonationMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyAcousticsCommunicationSpeech recognitionComputer sciencePhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of proprioception in speech and oral motor control was investigated by applying tendon vibration to the masseter during vowel production and nonspeech oral movements. Measures were made of peak jaw-opening amplitude, jaw-opening velocity, and movement time in both vibration and nonvibration conditions. Generally, the tendon vibration caused a consistent and marked reduction in the amplitude and velocity of jaw-opening movements for each subject in both tasks. Movement time remained consistent across the vibration conditions for both tasks. These results indicate that masseter tendon vibration causes significant changes in jaw kinematics during simple speech gestures and nonspeech movements. These findings are consistent with the documented effects of tendon vibration on limb movements. The study demonstrates that tendon vibration is a potent tool for investigating proprioception in speech and oral motor control.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207