Talkers alter vowel production in response to real-time formant perturbation even when instructed not to compensate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Talkers show sensitivity to a range of perturbations of auditory feedback (e.g., manipulation of vocal amplitude, fundamental frequency and formant frequency). Here, 50 subjects spoke a monosyllable ("head"), and the formants in their speech were shifted in real time using a custom signal processing system that provided feedback over headphones. First and second formants were altered so that the auditory feedback matched subjects' production of "had." Three different instructions were tested: (1) control, in which subjects were naive about the feedback manipulation, (2) ignore headphones, in which subjects were told that their voice might sound different and to ignore what they heard in the headphones, and (3) avoid compensation, in which subjects were informed in detail about the manipulation and were told not to compensate. Despite explicit instruction to ignore the feedback changes, subjects produced a robust compensation in all conditions. There were no differences in the magnitudes of the first or second formant changes between groups. In general, subjects altered their vowel formant values in a direction opposite to the perturbation, as if to cancel its effects. These results suggest that compensation in the face of formant perturbation is relatively automatic, and the response is not easily modified by conscious strategy.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it