MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120399728 · doi:10.3109/02699206.2015.1007527

Exploring consequences of short- and long-term deafness on speech production: A lip-tube perturbation study

2015· article· en· W2120399728 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine Turgeon, Amélie Prémont, Paméla Trudeau-Fisette, Lucie Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Linguistics & Phonetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAudiologyPsychologySpeech productionCochlear implantAuditory feedbackSpeech perceptionVowelPerceptionSpeech recognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have reported strong links between speech production and perception. We aimed to evaluate the role of long- and short-term auditory feedback alteration on speech production. Eleven adults with normal hearing (controls) and 17 cochlear implant (CI) users (7 pre-lingually deaf and 10 post-lingually deaf adults) were recruited. Short-term auditory feedback deprivation was induced by turning off the CI or by providing masking noise. Acoustic and articulatory measures were obtained during the production of /u/, with and without a tube inserted between the lips (perturbation), and with and without auditory feedback. F1 values were significantly different between the implant OFF and ON conditions for the pre-lingually deaf participants. In the absence of auditory feedback, the pre-lingually deaf participants moved the tongue more forward. Thus, a lack of normal auditory experience of speech may affect the internal representation of a vowel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.514
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.035 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Linguistics & PhoneticsSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207