Timing variability of sensorimotor integration during vocalization in individuals who stutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persistent developmental stuttering affects close to 1% of adults and is thought to be a problem of sensorimotor integration. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who stutter respond differently to changes in their auditory feedback while speaking. Here we explore a number of changes that accompany alterations in the feedback of pitch during vocal production. Participants sustained the vowel /a/ while hearing on-line feedback of their own voice through headphones. In some trials, feedback was briefly shifted up or down by 100 cents to simulate a vocal production error. As previously shown, participants compensated for the auditory pitch change by altering their vocal production in the opposite direction of the shift. The average compensatory response was smaller for adults who stuttered than for adult controls. Detailed analyses revealed that adults who stuttered had fewer trials with a robust corrective response, and that within the trials showing compensation, the timing of their responses was more variable. These results support the idea that dysfunctional sensorimotor integration in stuttering is characterized by timing variability, reflecting reduced coupling of the auditory and speech motor systems.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".