The role of somatosensory feedback in the production of English vowels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech involves the complex coordination of motor, auditory and somatosensory systems. Perturbing feedback in speech has been shown to impact both vowels and consonants. The present study sought to investigate the role of somatosensory feedback in the production of four English vowels (/i, æ, u/, and /ɑ/). Thirty-three female, native English speakers were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. The experimental group received 15 ml of 2% lidocaine mouthwash, whereas the control group received a visually comparable solution without anesthetic. Participants produced 10 repetitions of four words (/bit, bæt, but, bɑt/) in random order. Formant frequencies (F1, F2) of all four vowels were extracted and analyzed using eight linear mixed effects models. Significant effects were found for F1 in the experimental group for the single vowel /u/. The results suggest that the articulatory system is robust against somatosensory feedback perturbation in learned articulations.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".