Maintaining Distinctiveness at Increased Speaking Rates: A Comparison between Congenitally Blind and Sighted Speakers
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: The effects of increased speaking rates on vowels have been well documented in sighted adults. It has been reported that in fast speech, vowels are less widely spaced acoustically than in their citation form. Vowel space compression has also been reported in congenitally blind speakers. The objective of the study was to investigate the interaction of vision and speaking rate in adult speakers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Contrast distances between vowels were examined in conversational and fast speech produced by 10 congenitally blind and 10 sighted French-Canadian adults. Acoustic analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Compared with the sighted speakers, in the fast speaking condition, the blind speakers produced more vowels with contrast along the height, place of articulation, and rounding features located within the auditory target regions typical of French vowels. CONCLUSION: Blind speakers relied more heavily than sighted speakers on auditory properties of vowels to maintain perceptual distinctiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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