Coordination of Oral and Laryngeal Movements in the Perceptually Fluent Speech of Adults Who Stutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigated whether stuttering and nonstuttering adults differ in the coordination of oral and laryngeal movements during the production of perceptually fluent speech. This question was addressed by completing correlation analyses that extended previous acoustic studies by others as well as inferential analyses based on the within-subject central tendency and variability of acoustic and physiological indices of oral-laryngeal control and coordination. Stuttering and nonstuttering adults produced the target /p/ as the medial consonant in C(1)V(1)#C(2)V(2)C(3) sequences (C = consonant; V = vowel or diphthong; # = word boundary) embedded in utterances differing in length and location of the target movements. No between-groups differences were found for across- or within-subject correlations between acoustic measures of stop gap and voice onset time (VOT). However, the acoustic data did show longer durations for devoicing interval and VOT in the stuttering versus nonstuttering individuals, in the absence of a difference for a proportional measure specifically reflecting oral-laryngeal relative timing. Analyses of combined kinematic and electroglottographic data revealed that the stuttering individuals' speech was also characterized by (a) longer durations from bilabial closing movement onset and peak velocity to V(1) vocal fold vibration offset and (b) greater within-subject variability for dependent variables that were physiological indices of devoicing interval and VOT, but again no between-groups differences were found for specific indices of oral-laryngeal relative timing. Overall, findings suggest that, for the production of voiceless bilabial stops in perceptually fluent speech, stuttering and nonstuttering adults differ in the duration of intervals defined by events within as well as across the oral and laryngeal subsystems, but the groups show similar patterns of relative timing for the involved oral and laryngeal movements.
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 | 0.001 | 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".