Coupling Dynamics Interlip Coordination in Lower Lip Load Compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE To study the effects of lower lip loading on lower and upper lip movements and their coordination to test predictions on coupling dynamics derived from studies in limb control. METHOD Movement data were acquired using electromagnetic midsagittal articulography under 4 conditions: (a) without restrictions, serving as a baseline; (b) with a small carrier device attached to the lower lip; (c) with a 50-g weight added to the device; and, at the end of the session (d) with the weight and device removed. For all conditions, 8 participants repeated nonwords at 2 speaking rates. Movement data were used to derive discrete kinematic measures, a cyclic index of spatiotemporal variability, phase deviations, and standard deviations of relative phase for interlip coupling. RESULTS Kinematic variables were not systematically affected by lower lip load. Phase deviations also showed no change, but in contrast, phase variability showed a significant increase for the lower lip load condition at fast rates. CONCLUSION Lower lip load effects are comparable to the reported impact of homologous limb loading, showing evidence for a tight coupling between both lips in line with predictions from coordination dynamics accounts in the literature.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".