Speech habilitation of hard of hearing adolescents using electropalatography and ultrasound as evaluated by trained listeners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four adolescents with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing losses and moderately unintelligible speech participated in a 14-week speech therapy study using two dynamic visual feedback technologies, electropalatography and ultrasound imaging. Electropalatography provides information about tongue-hard palate contact points. Ultrasound displays images of tongue shape and movement in two dimensions from the tip to the root. Treatment targets for all participants included a sibilant place contrast (/s/ versus /[symbol: see text]/), liquids /l/ and /[symbol: see text]/, and the tense-lax vowel contrast with the high vowels. Trained listener evaluations of pre- and post-treatment transcripts are reported in this paper. Significant improvements in speech production were noted across students and targets. Treatment targets improved significantly more than non-treatment test targets overall. Students showed greatest gains on consonants that were absent or marginal in their speech pre-treatment. No particular advantage of one technology over the other was evident in this sample.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.079 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it