Do Patients With Neurogenic Speech Sound Impairments Benefit From Auditory Priming With a Regular Metrical Pattern?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Earlier investigations based on word and sentence repetition tasks had revealed that the most prevalent metrical pattern in German (the trochee)-unlike the iambic pattern-facilitates articulation in patients with apraxia of speech (AOS; e.g., Aichert, Späth, & Ziegler, 2016), confirming that segmental and prosodic aspects of speech production interact. In this study, we investigated if articulation in apraxic speakers also benefits from auditory priming by speech with a regular rhythm. Furthermore, we asked if the advantage of regular speech rhythm, if present, is confined to impairments at the motor planning stage of speech production (i.e., AOS) or if it also applies to phonological encoding impairments. Method Twelve patients with AOS, 12 aphasic patients with postlexical phonological impairment (PI), and 36 neurologically healthy speakers were examined. A sequential synchronization paradigm based on a sentence completion task was conducted in conditions where we independently varied the metrical regularity of the prime sentence (regular vs. irregular prime sentence) and the metrical regularity of the target word (trochaic vs. iambic). Results Our data confirmed the facilitating effect of regular (trochaic) word stress on speech accuracy in patients with AOS (target effect). This effect could, for the first time, also be demonstrated in individuals with PI. Moreover, the study also revealed an influence of the metrical regularity of speech input in both patient groups (prime effect). Conclusions Patients with AOS and patients with PI exploited rhythmic cues in the speech of a model speaker for the initiation and the segmental realization of words. There seems to be a robust metrical influence on speech at both the phonological and the phonetic planning stages of speech production.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".