Somatosensory influence on the perception of speech sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with auditory information, sensory information associated with articulatory movements may also be involved in the neural processing that subserves speech perception. Although somatosensory organs in the orofacial system provide this kind of input, there have been few studies assessing the influence of somatosensory afferents on speech perception. To explore this idea, we examined the possibility that by altering somatosensory information, we might modify the perception of speech sounds. We tested native speakers of American English in a speech identification task using a 10-step synthesized continuum between gheadh and ghad.h Subjects listened to the stimuli one at a time through headphones and classified them as gheadh or ghad.h For half of the trials, during the presentation of the auditory stimulus, we used a robotic device to stretch the facial skin stretch lateral to the oral angle in order to modulate somatosensory information. The mechanical perturbation was timed so that its start and end coincided with that of the auditory stimulus. The results show a systematic modification of speech perception due to altered somatosensory input, which varied systematically according to the direction of the skin stretch perturbation. This suggests that somatosensory information influences the neural processing of speech signals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".