Portable Device Validation to Study the Relation between Motor Activity and Language: Verify the Embodiment Theory through Grip Force Modulation
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
Studying the link between the motor function and the linguistic function has become increasingly popular over the past decade. Often, the subject is studied with the use of expensive devices (EEG, fIRM...) limited because they need a proper space. Following the studies of Frak & al. (2010), Aravena & al. (2012-2014) and Nazir & al. (2015), at CML (Cerveau, Motricité et Langage) laboratory, we developed a portable device that analyses the grip force modulation. This device provides us with the opportunity to put in place a developmental study with children in Canada and Brazil. We analyzed the grip force modulation of fourteen Canadian teenagers (Can.) and fifteen Brazilian teenagers (Bra.) after experiencing linguistic stimulation through the use of action words (e.g. grab) and non-action word (e.g. storm). The maturity of teenagers’ intraparietal area is similar to that of adults. Thus, we can compare our results with the those of Frak & al. (2010). The force modulations are analyzed using grip force sensors that are recording a variation in millinewton (mN) every millisecond (ms). Our choice in material and technic to normalize the data is based on our previous study concerning grip force sensors and linguistic stimulation. Our results show a superior modulation after listening to an action word compared to the non-action word in the two groups. We reproduce the results of Frak & al. (2010). The validation of the portable device could facilitate research by giving access to a both a larger and diverse population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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