Sensorimotor control of vocal production in early childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children maintain fluent speech despite dramatic changes to their articulators during development. Auditory feedback aids in the acquisition and maintenance of the sensorimotor mechanisms that underlie vocal motor control. MacDonald, Johnson, Forsythe, Plante, and Munhall (2012) reported that toddlers' speech motor control systems may "suppress" the influence of auditory feedback, since exposure to altered auditory feedback regarding their formant frequencies did not lead to modifications of their speech. This finding is not parsimonious with most theories of motor control. Here, we exposed toddlers to perturbations to the pitch of their auditory feedback as they vocalized. Toddlers compensated for the manipulations, producing significantly different responses to upward and downward perturbations. These data represent the first empirical demonstration that toddlers use auditory feedback for vocal motor control. Furthermore, our findings suggest toddlers are more sensitive to changes to the postural properties of their auditory feedback, such as fundamental frequency, relative to the phonemic properties, such as formant frequencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".