MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2984267660 · doi:10.1121/1.5136668

Vowel production in children with myotonic dystrophy: A lip-tube perturbation study

2019· article· en· W2984267660 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Ménard, Paméla Trudeau-Fisette, Cristina López Uribe, Camille Vidou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyMyotonic dystrophyVowelTongueFormantSpeech productionIntelligibility (philosophy)PerceptionAuditory feedbackPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myotonic dystrophy, a neurodegenerative disease that causes muscle weakness and difficulties in muscle relaxation after contraction, frequently affects orofacial articulatory dynamics leading to decreased speech intelligibility, particularly in children. We aimed to investigate the effects of myotonic dystrophy on sensorimotor relationships in children’s speech through a study of compensations for a lip-tube perturbation. We recruited fourteen 6- to 14-year-old French-speaking children diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy and 14 aged-matched typically developing children. They were asked to produce repetitions of the vowel /u/ with and without a 15-mm-diameter tube inserted between the lips. A synchronized ultrasound, Optotrak motion tracking system, and audio recording system was used to track lip and jaw displacement as well as tongue shape and position. Separate analyses were conducted on the first (F1), the second formant (F2), and the fundamental frequency (F0). Results revealed a significant main effect of group and an interaction between group and condition. Perceptual ratings of the produced vowels suggest that children with myotonic dystrophy rely more on auditory feedback than their typically developing peers. Together, results suggest that auditory feedback plays an important role in speech compensation, especially when the production system is impaired.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases→French-language works237,207→