MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013059633 · doi:10.3200/jmbr.38.3.238-247

Oral Kinesthetic Deficit in Adults Who Stutter: A Target-Accuracy Study

2006· article· en· W2013059633 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStutteringKinesthetic learningPsychologyAudiologyMotor controlTask (project management)Physical medicine and rehabilitationDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study was based on the hypothesis that chronic developmental stuttering in adults involves a deficiency in oral kinesthesia. The authors used a target-accuracy task to compare oral kinesthesia in adults who stutter (n = 17) and in normal speakers (n = 17). During the task, participants were instructed to make accurate jaw-opening movements in visual and nonvisual feedback conditions. The authors further contrasted oral movement control in a normal response time condition with that in a reaction time condition. Overall, the adults who stutter consistently made significantly less accurate and more variable movements than the control participants in the nonvisual condition, but particularly in the reaction time condition. In general, the present findings suggest that chronic developmental stuttering involves an oral kinesthetic deficiency, although without direct measures of somatosensory function, one cannot exclude a motor deficit interpretation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.324 · 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