Direct Magnitude Estimation and Interval Scaling of Naturalness and Severity in Tracheoesophageal (TE) Speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the psychophysical character and validity of auditory-perceptual ratings of naturalness and overall severity for tracheoesophageal (TE) speech. This was achieved through use of direct magnitude estimation (DME) and equal-appearing interval (EAI) scaling procedures. Twenty adult listeners judged speech naturalness and overall severity from connected speech samples produced by 20 adult male TE speakers. A comparison of DME- and EAI-scaled judgments yielded a metathetic continuum for naturalness and a prothetic continuum for overall severity. These data provide support for the use of either DME or EAI scales in auditory-perceptual ratings of naturalness, but they provide support only for DME scales in judging overall severity for TE speech. The present results suggest that the nature of perceptual phenomena (prothetic vs. metathetic) for TE speakers is consistent with findings for the same dimensions produced by normal laryngeal speakers. These data also support a need for further study of perceptual dimensions associated with TE voice and speech in order to avoid the inappropriate and invalid use of EAI scales frequently found in diagnosis, assessment, and evaluation of this clinical population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".