The effects of Parkinson’s disease on the production of contrastive stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced speech intelligibility has been observed clinically among patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD); one possible contributor to these problems is that motor limitations in PD reduce the ability to mark linguistic contrasts in speech using prosodic cues. This study compared acoustic aspects of the production of contrastive stress (CS) in sentences that were elicited from ten subjects with PD and ten matched control subjects without neurological impairment. Subjects responded to questions that biased them to put emphasis on the first, middle, or last word of target utterances. The mean vowel duration and mean fundamental frequency (F0) of each keyword were then measured, normalized, and analyzed for possible differences in the acoustic cues provided by each group to signal emphatic stress. Both groups demonstrated systematic differences in vowel lengthening between emphasized and unemphasized words across word positions; however, controls were more reliable than PD subjects at modulating the F0 of emphasized words to signal its location in the utterance. Group differences in the F0 measures suggest one possible source of the impoverished intelligibility of Parkinsonian speech and will be investigated in a subsequent study that looks at the direct impact of these changes on emphasis perception by listeners. [Work supported by CIHR.]
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".