Auditory-Motor Learning during Speech Production in 9-11-Year-Old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing ability is essential for normal speech development, however the precise mechanisms linking auditory input and the improvement of speaking ability remain poorly understood. Auditory feedback during speech production is believed to play a critical role by providing the nervous system with information about speech outcomes that is used to learn and subsequently fine-tune speech motor output. Surprisingly, few studies have directly investigated such auditory-motor learning in the speech production of typically developing children. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the present study, we manipulated auditory feedback during speech production in a group of 9-11-year old children, as well as in adults. Following a period of speech practice under conditions of altered auditory feedback, compensatory changes in speech production and perception were examined. Consistent with prior studies, the adults exhibited compensatory changes in both their speech motor output and their perceptual representations of speech sound categories. The children exhibited compensatory changes in the motor domain, with a change in speech output that was similar in magnitude to that of the adults, however the children showed no reliable compensatory effect on their perceptual representations. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that 9-11-year-old children, whose speech motor and perceptual abilities are still not fully developed, are nonetheless capable of auditory-feedback-based sensorimotor adaptation, supporting a role for such learning processes in speech motor development. Auditory feedback may play a more limited role, however, in the fine-tuning of children's perceptual representations of speech sound categories.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".