Entrainment by vocal effort: Coordination in postural control and speech production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomechanical coupling between the systems implicated in speech production, postural control, and respiration suggests that some degree of coordination in the form of postural entrainment should take place given excessive task demands in the speech domain, as has been previously reported [Vatikiotis-Bateson, et al., (2009) Proceedings of ESCOM 2009]. In this context, this work assesses the time-varying coordination and entrainment among multiple components of the postural control system that result from the modulation of vocal effort level in both read and spontaneous speech. Correlation map analysis is used to quantify the coordinated patterns of interaction between speech acoustics and a variety of related physical systems, including lower body postural configuration (center-of-pressure calculated from force plate measurements), head motion (measured with OPTOTRAK), and visual motion (optical flow from video). Cross-correlation analysis of the measured signals shows that modulation of vocal effort leads to both qualitative and quantitative shifts in the coordinative dynamics of the system, uniformly resulting in better spatiotemporal coordination and reduced rhythmic pattern complexity as vocal effort is increased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".