MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111988756 · doi:10.1068/ic819

Sensorimotor Interactions in Speech Learning

2011· article· en· W3111988756 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas M. Shiller

Bibliographic record

Venuei-Perception · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeech productionNeurocomputational speech processingAuditory feedbackPerceptionMotor theory of speech perceptionSpeech perceptionAdaptation (eye)PsychologyCognitive psychologyProduction (economics)Speech recognitionAudiologyComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory input is essential for normal speech development and plays a key role in speech production throughout the life span. In traditional models, auditory input plays two critical roles: 1) establishing the acoustic correlates of speech sounds that serve, in part, as the targets of speech production, and 2) as a source of feedback about a talker's own speech outcomes. This talk will focus on both of these roles, describing a series of studies that examine the capacity of children and adults to adapt to real-time manipulations of auditory feedback during speech production. In one study, we examined sensory and motor adaptation to a manipulation of auditory feedback during production of the fricative “s”. In contrast to prior accounts, adaptive changes were observed not only in speech motor output but also in subjects' perception of the sound. In a second study, speech adaptation was examined following a period of auditory–perceptual training targeting the perception of vowels. The perceptual training was found to systematically improve subjects' motor adaptation response to altered auditory feedback during speech production. The results of both studies support the idea that perceptual and motor processes are tightly coupled in speech production learning, and that the degree and nature of this coupling may change with development.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuei-PerceptionSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207