Acoustic and articulatory analysis of French vowels produced by congenitally blind adults and sighted adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous paper [Ménard et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 1406-1414 (2009)], it was demonstrated that, despite enhanced auditory discrimination abilities for synthesized vowels, blind adult French speakers produced vowels that were closer together in the acoustic space than those produced by sighted adult French speakers, suggesting finer control of speech production in the sighted speakers. The goal of the present study is to further investigate the articulatory effects of visual deprivation on vowels produced by 11 blind and 11 sighted adult French speakers. Synchronous ultrasound, acoustic, and video recordings of the participants articulating the ten French oral vowels were made. Results show that sighted speakers produce vowels that are spaced significantly farther apart in the acoustic vowel space than blind speakers. Furthermore, blind speakers use smaller differences in lip protrusion but larger differences in tongue position and shape than their sighted peers to produce rounding and place of articulation contrasts. Trade-offs between lip and tongue positions were examined. Results are discussed in the light of the perception-for-action control theory.
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 | 0.001 | 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".