Influence of Voice Focus on Oral-Nasal Balance in Speakers of Brazilian Portuguese
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
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates whether a change in speaking voice focus affects the oral-nasal balance. The investigation was undertaken with different phonetic materials in speakers of Brazilian Portuguese, which features phonological and phonetic vowel nasalization. METHODS: Ten females read oral, balanced oral-nasal, and nasal loaded sentences in their normal voice, and with a backward focus and a forward focus. Nasalance scores were collected with a Nasometer 6400. RESULTS: A repeated measures ANOVA of the nasalance scores demonstrated a significant main effect of speaking condition (F(2, 18) = 12.87, p < 0.001). The mean nasalance scores across the stimuli in the backward focus and normal speaking conditions were 36.85% (SD 16.85) and 40.18% (SD 18.02), respectively, both significantly lower than the forward focus condition at 45.38% (SD 18.90). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that speaking focus influences oral-nasal balance in normal speakers. In future research, it should be investigated whether voice focus can also modify oral-nasal balance in hypernasal speakers with cleft palate and other disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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