Effects of Congenital Visual Deprivation on the Auditory Perception of Anticipatory Labial Coarticulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It has been shown previously that congenitally blind francophone adults had higher auditory discrimination scores than sighted adults. It is unclear, however, if, compared to their sighted peers, blind speakers display an increased ability to detect anticipatory acoustic cues. In this paper, this ability is investigated in both speaker groups. METHODS: Using the gating paradigm, /izi/ and /izy/ sequences were truncated to include a variable duration of the vowel. The sequences were used as stimuli in an auditory identification test. Seventeen congenitally blind adults (9 females and 8 males) and 17 sighted controls were recruited. Their task was to identify the second vowel of the sequence. RESULTS: Results show that all participants could reliably identify the rounded vowel prior to its acoustic onset, but steeper identification slopes were found for sighted listeners than for blind listeners. CONCLUSION: The difference in identification slopes likely suggests that sighted speakers display finer abilities to perceptually follow the decreasing values of the frication noise, compared to blind speakers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it