Auditory and somatosensory goals for sibilants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In prior studies [JSLHR 47, 1259-69, 2004; JASA 116, 2338-44, 2004], we found that speakers' auditory acuity for synthetic sibilant (/s/, /sh/) and vowel stimuli was correlated with the degree of acoustic contrast they produced. This outcome is consistent with the view that the articulatory movements underlying phonemic contrasts have auditory goals. There was also a cross-speaker relation between sibilant contrast and use of contact between the tongue tip and lower alveolar ridge for /s/ (but not /sh), indicating that such contact is a somatosensory goal for /s/. In the current study, another, larger group of subjects also showed relations between measures of auditory acuity and acoustic contrast for sibilants and vowels. To determine whether the idea of a somatosensory goal for /s/ would also be supported by a relation between acuity and contrast, we made measurements of somatosensory discrimination. Small plastic (JVP) domes with grooves of different spacing were pressed against each subject's tongue tip and the subject was asked to identify one of four possible orientations of the grooves. A wide range of individual performance was observed with a bias-corrected sensitivity measure. Correlations with produced sibilant contrast and further analyses will be reported. [Research supported by NIDCD, NIH.]
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".