Motor Aspects of the Emergence of Oral Gestures for Speech: A Dynamic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergence approaches to speech acquisition consider speech development as a dynamic process in which the body's actions play a crucial role in the acquisition of phonological knowledge. This assumption is rooted in the hypothesis that the phylogenetic origin of speech lies in oral behaviors for feeding (e.g., smacking, chewing, and sucking). This dissertation investigates motor aspects of emergent speech from a dynamic systems approach in real-time, developmental time and across motor systems. Specifically, it examines contrasting predictions from Articulatory Phonology and Frame-then-Content theory regarding articulator control in early babbling. Infants aged 6 and 8 months were presented with an audiovisual presentation of an adult model producing lip smacks and tongue smacks. The 8-month-old infants exhibited more lip gestures than tongue gestures following adult lip smacks and more tongue gestures than lip gestures following adult tongue-tip smacks. This finding implies that 8-month-old infants are capable of producing goal-directed oral gestures by matching the articulatory organ of an adult model, which is consistent with predictions from Articulatory Phonology. The 6-month-old infants provided no evidence of significant differential responding. Instead, they showed bouts of complex oral movements involving lips and tongue, which resembled ingestive behaviors. This developmental pattern seems homologous with the development of lip smacking in monkeys, supporting the contention that speech developed from rhythmic facial expressions in phylogeny. Besides oral responses, the infants also showed manual responses to the oral gesture presentations. Compared to a baseline condition, infants increased their rate of rhythmic oral and manual (hand and arm) movements during the presentation of rhythmic oral gestures, with older infants exhibiting a higher rate of rhythmic movement events than younger infants. The findings strengthen claims of linkage between the motor systems underlying rhythmic oral and manual behavior in infancy. Overall, the results contribute to the advancement of theory on speech production and offer new directions for the investigation of precursors of speech.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".