The development of motor synergies in children: Ultrasound and acoustic measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study focuses on differences in lingual coarticulation between French children and adults. The specific question pursued is whether 4-5 year old children have already acquired a synergy observed in adults in which the tongue back helps the tip in the formation of alveolar consonants. Locus equations, estimated from acoustic and ultrasound imaging data were used to compare coarticulation degree between adults and children and further investigate differences in motor synergy between the front and back parts of the tongue. Results show similar slope and intercept patterns for adults and children in both the acoustic and articulatory domains, with an effect of place of articulation in both groups between alveolar and non-alveolar consonants. These results suggest that 4-5 year old children (1) have learned the motor synergy investigated and (2) have developed a pattern of coarticulatory resistance depending on a consonant place of articulation. Also, results show that acoustic locus equations can be used to gauge the presence of motor synergies in children.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".