Using Network Science Measures to Predict the Lexical Decision Performance of Adults Who Stutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Methods from network science have examined various aspects of language processing. Clinical populations may also benefit from these novel analyses. Phonological and lexical factors have been examined in adults who stutter (AWS) as potential contributing factors to stuttering, although differences reported are often subtle. We reexamined the performance of AWS and adults who do not stutter (AWNS) from a previously conducted lexical decision task in an attempt to determine if network science measures would provide additional insight into the phonological network of AWS beyond traditional psycholinguistic measures. Method: Multiple regression was used to examine the influence of several traditional psycholinguistic measures as well as several new measures from network science on response times. Results: AWS responded to low-frequency words more slowly than AWNS; responses for both groups were equivalent for high-frequency words. AWS responded to shorter words more slowly than AWNS, producing a reverse word-length effect. For the network measures, degree/neighborhood density and closeness centrality, but not whether a word was inside or outside the giant component, influenced response times similarly between groups. Conclusions: Network analyses suggest that multiple levels of the phonological network might influence phonological processing, not just the micro-level traditionally considered by mainstream psycholinguistics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".