Articulatory kinematics during stop closure in speakers with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have identified the perceptual characteristics of speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD), imprecise consonants (e.g., Darley, Aronson, and Brown, 1969). Acoustic studies have supported these findings with the observations such as spirantization, or the incomplete closure and fricative-like production of aperiodic noise during the closuresilent interval of stop consonants (Weismer, Yunusova, and Bunton, 2012). The current presentation explores the articulatory kinematics in speakers with PD during the closure interval duration of stop consonants with respect to distance, displacement, and timing of inter-articulators motion. In addition, the changes in articulatory movements during this brief time interval are examined as the speakers voluntarily vary the degree of speech intelligibility. Participants with PD and neurologically healthy controls were asked to read sentences containing stop consonants (e.g.,“Buy Bobby a puppy”). Movement data were collected using the WAVE (NDI, Canada). The results from the five articulatory measurement points (tongue front, tongue back, upper lip, lower lip, and jaw) will be presented with emphasis on segment-specific movement characteristics of individuals with Parkinson’s disease, PD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".