Intrinsic fundamental frequency effects in hearing impaired speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The source of the well-known intrinsic fundamental frequency (IF0) effect of vowel height has been controversial for decades. Previous work has found the average IF0 effect cross-linguistically to be 15.3 Hz [Whalen and Levitt, J. Phonetics (1995)]. The present study investigates IF0 for four hearing-impaired speakers. Based on previous observations that profoundly hearing impaired speakers vary voice pitch less than normal hearing speakers [Osberger and McGarr, Speech Lang. (1982)], our participants were expected to show a reduced IF0 effect. However, results show an average IF0 effect of 22 Hz, with a markedly wide range across speakers, from −4 to 48 Hz, with three of the four participants showing an above average-sized effect. Further, results of measures taken following speech articulation intervention using visual feedback [Bernhardt et al., Clin. Linguist Phonet. (2003)] show a decrease in IF0 for the speakers with an over-sized effect, and an increase in the speaker with an under-sized effect, despite that neither IF0 nor pitch in general were included in treatment. Results of this study support a lingual-articulatory origin for IF0, as well as suggesting that normal-hearing speakers may use auditory feedback to mediate what would otherwise be a larger effect. [Research supported by NSERC.]
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".