Production of two Nasal Sounds by Speakers with Cleft Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many speakers with cleft palate develop atypical consonant productions, especially for pressure consonants such as plosives, fricatives, and affricates. The present study investigated the nature of nasal sound errors. The participants were eight female and three male speakers with cleft palate between the ages of 6 to 20. Speakers were audio-recorded, and midsagittal tongue movement was captured with ultrasound. The speakers repeated vowel-consonant-vowel with the vowels /α/, /i/, and /u/ and the alveolar and velar nasal consonants /n/ and /η/. The productions were reviewed by three listeners. The participants showed a variety of different placement errors and insertions of plosives, as well as liquid productions. There was considerable error variability between and within speakers, often related to the different vowel contexts. Three speakers co-produced click sounds. The study demonstrated the wide variety of sound errors that some speakers with cleft palate may demonstrate for nasal sounds. Nasal sounds, ideally in different vowel contexts, should be included in articulation screenings for speakers with cleft palate, perhaps more than is currently the case.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".