Articulatory Distinctiveness of Vowels and Consonants: A Data-Driven Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the articulatory distinctiveness of 8 major English vowels and 11 English consonants based on tongue and lip movement time series data using a data-driven approach. METHOD: Tongue and lip movements of 8 vowels and 11 consonants from 10 healthy talkers were collected. First, classification accuracies were obtained using 2 complementary approaches: (a) Procrustes analysis and (b) a support vector machine. Procrustes distance was then used to measure the articulatory distinctiveness among vowels and consonants. Finally, the distance (distinctiveness) matrices of different vowel pairs and consonant pairs were used to derive articulatory vowel and consonant spaces using multidimensional scaling. RESULTS: Vowel classification accuracies of 91.67% and 89.05% and consonant classification accuracies of 91.37% and 88.94% were obtained using Procrustes analysis and a support vector machine, respectively. Articulatory vowel and consonant spaces were derived based on the pairwise Procrustes distances. CONCLUSIONS: The articulatory vowel space derived in this study resembled the long-standing descriptive articulatory vowel space defined by tongue height and advancement. The articulatory consonant space was consistent with feature-based classification of English consonants. The derived articulatory vowel and consonant spaces may have clinical implications, including serving as an objective measure of the severity of articulatory impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".