Control of oral closure in lingual stop consonant production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that the lips are moving at a high velocity when the oral closure occurs for bilabial stop consonants, resulting in tissue compression and mechanical interactions between the lips. The present experiment recorded tongue movements in four subjects during the production of velar and alveolar stop consonants to examine kinematic events before, during, and after the stop closure. The results show that, similar to the lips, the tongue is often moving at a high velocity at the onset of closure. The tongue movements were more complex, with both horizontal and vertical components. Movement velocity at closure and release were influenced by both the preceding and the following vowel. During the period of oral closure, the tongue moved through a trajectory of usually less than 1 cm; again, the magnitude of the movement was context dependent. Overall, the tongue moved in forward-backward curved paths. The results are compatible with the idea that the tongue is free to move during the closure as long as an airtight seal is maintained. A new interpretation of the curved movement paths of the tongue in speech is also proposed. This interpretation is based on the principle of cost minimization that has been successfully applied in the study of hand movements in reaching.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".