Variability in muscle activation of simple speech motions: A biomechanical modeling approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanical models of the oropharynx facilitate the study of speech function by providing information that cannot be directly derived from imaging data, such as internal muscle forces and muscle activation patterns. Such models, when constructed and simulated based on anatomy and motion captured from individual speakers, enable the exploration of inter-subject variability of speech biomechanics. These models also allow one to answer questions, such as whether speakers produce similar sounds using essentially the same motor patterns with subtle differences, or vastly different motor equivalent patterns. Following this direction, this study uses speaker-specific modeling tools to investigate the muscle activation variability in two simple speech tasks that move the tongue forward (/ə-ɡis/) vs backward (/ə-suk/). Three dimensional tagged magnetic resonance imaging data were used to inversely drive the biomechanical models in four English speakers. Results show that the genioglossus is the workhorse muscle of the tongue, with activity levels of 10% in different subdivisions at different times. Jaw and hyoid positioners (inferior pterygoid and digastric) also show high activation during specific phonemes. Other muscles may be more involved in fine tuning the shapes. For example, slightly more activation of the anterior portion of the transverse is found during apical than laminal /s/, which would protrude the tongue tip to a greater extent for the apical /s/.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".