Alveolar and Postalveolar Voiceless Fricative and Affricate Productions of Spanish–English Bilingual Children With Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates the production of voiceless alveolar and postalveolar fricatives and affricates by bilingual and monolingual children with hearing loss who use cochlear implants (CIs) and their peers with normal hearing (NH). Method: Fifty-four children participated in our study, including 12 Spanish-English bilingual CI users (M = 6;0 [years;months]), 12 monolingual English-speaking children with CIs (M = 6;1), 20 bilingual children with NH (M = 6;5), and 10 monolingual English-speaking children with NH (M = 5;10). Picture elicitation targeting /s/, /tʃ/, and /ʃ/ was administered. Repeated-measures analyses of variance comparing group means for frication duration, rise time, and centroid frequency were conducted for the effects of CI use and bilingualism. Results: All groups distinguished the target sounds in the 3 acoustic parameters examined. Regarding frication duration and rise time, the Spanish productions of bilingual children with CIs differed from their bilingual peers with NH. English frication duration patterns for bilingual versus monolingual CI users also differed. Centroid frequency was a stronger place cue for children with NH than for children with CIs. Conclusion: Patterns of fricative and affricate production display effects of bilingualism and diminished signal, yielding unique patterns for bilingual and monolingual CI users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".