Syllable-Related Breathing in Infants in the Second Year of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored whether breathing behaviors of infants within the 2nd year of life differ between tidal breathing and breathing supporting single unarticulated syllables and canonical/articulated syllables. METHOD: Vocalizations and breathing kinematics of 9 infants between 53 and 90 weeks of age were recorded. A strict selection protocol was used to identify analyzable breath cycles. Syllables were categorized on the basis of consensus coding. Inspiratory and expiratory durations, excursions, and slopes were calculated for the 3 breath cycle types and were normalized using mean tidal breath measures. RESULTS: Tidal breathing cycles were significantly different from syllable-related cycles on all breathing measures. There were no significant differences between unarticulated syllable cycles and canonical syllable cycles, even after controlling for utterance duration and sound pressure level. CONCLUSIONS: Infants in the 2nd year of life exhibit clear differences between tidal breathing and speech-related breathing, but categorically distinct breath support for syllable types with varying articulatory demands was not evident in the present findings. Speech development introduces increasingly complex utterances, so older infants may produce detectable articulation-related adaptations of breathing kinematics. For younger infants, breath support may vary systematically among utterance types, due more to phonatory variations than to articulatory demands.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".