MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2555781806 · doi:10.1121/1.4971090

Influence of clear speech on voice onset time and intelligibility of word-initial stop consonants in electrolaryngeal speech

2016· article· en· W2555781806 on OpenAlexaff
Steven R. Cox, Lawrence J. Raphael, Philip C. Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntelligibility (philosophy)VowelConsonantVoice-onset timeSpeech recognitionAudiologyPsychologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addressed the influence of clear speech (CS) on voice onset time (VOT) and intelligibility of word-initial (WI) stops in electrolaryngeal (EL) speech. Eighteen consonant-vowel-consonant words containing /p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/, and /g/ in WI position were spoken by 10 laryngectomees in both habitual speech (HS) and clear speech (CS) conditions. Twelve, naive listeners transcribed a total of 4,320 words across HS and CS conditions of which 720 words (containing WI stops) were analyzed. Results indicate that when using CS, EL speakers produced stops with ~4 milliseconds of greater lag time compared to HS. Further, the intelligibility of WI stops improved 3.8% during CS. Finally, listeners omitted 2.22% more stops in WI position when using HS compared to CS. However, repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant effect of speaking condition on VOT or the intelligibility of stops. Collectively, these findings provide initial evidence that volitional attempts to make EL speech clearer via CS does not necessarily facilitate improved VOT or intelligibility for EL 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→