Sensorimotor development and speech production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Perkell’s view [J. Perkell, J. Neurol. 25, 382–407], phonemic goals correspond to multidimensional spaces in the auditory and somatosensory dimensions. The relationships between sensory goals and motor actions in speech are acquired during infancy through feedback-based control mechanisms. Although there have been numerous studies of speech development, little is known about the specific roles of auditory and somatosensory feedback. This paper reviews a few studies of how pre-school-aged children rely on sensory feedback to reach phonemic targets. The studies looked at children with normal-hearing and deaf children with cochlear implants. Vowels and consonants were recorded in various prosodic contexts (neutral and under contrastive emphasis) and perturbation conditions (with or without artificial perturbations of the articulators). Acoustic, articulatory, and perceptual analyses were conducted to assess the degree to which children reached the targets. The data showed that although children’s productions were more variable than adults, children generally adapted their articulatory gestures to produce the appropriate sensory speech goals. The effects of perceptual acuity and phonological knowledge in speech development are discussed.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".