Effect of simultaneous lip-tube and auditory feedback perturbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a series of previous experiments, it has been shown that when required to produce the back rounded vowel /u/ with a lip-tube perturbation that prevents lip rounding, speakers reached the auditory goal associated with /u/ by altering their tongue position. In the present study, the importance of sensory feedback was further investigated by combining lip-tube and auditory feedback perturbations. Fifteen adult francophone speakers produced 5 blocks of ten /u/ tokens under various conditions (following and preceding a baseline condition). First, tokens were produced when the speakers had a lip-tube in place (predicted to increase F1 and F2) as well as a real-time auditory feedback perturbation (designed to cancel the acoustic effects of the lip-tube, that is, to decrease F2 and F1). Next, only the lip-tube perturbation was applied, with and without white noise. Formant values for each condition were extracted at the vowel midpoint. Although most speakers produced a larger compensatory response with the lip-tube alone condition than with the combined lip-tube and auditory perturbation condition, all speakers produced altered formants in the latter condition. This suggests that speakers try to reduce auditory and somatosensory feedback errors during speech production, with a speaker-specific weighting of each sensory modality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".