Acoustic and articulatory correlates of speaking condition in blind and sighted speakers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to conversational speech, clear speech is produced with longer vowel duration, greater intensity, increased contrasts between vowel categories, and decreased dispersion within vowel categories. Those acoustic correlates are produced by larger movements of the orofacial articulators, including visible (lips) and invisible (tongue) articulators. How are those cues produced by visually impaired speakers, who never had access to vision? In this paper, we investigate the acoustic and articulatory correlates of vowels in clear versus conversational speech, and in sighted and congenitally blind speakers. Participants were recorded using electroarticulography (EMA) while producing multiple repetitions of vowels in both speaking conditions. Lip movements were larger when going from conversational to clear speech in sighted speakers only. On the other hand, tongue movements were affected to a larger extent in blind speakers compared to their sighted peers. These findings confirm that vision plays a crucial role in the maintenance of speech intelligibility.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".