The Impact of Clear Speech on the Perceptual and Acoustic Properties of Fricative–Vowel Sequences in Speakers With Dysarthria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Studies have reported that clear speech has the potential to influence suprasegmental and segmental aspects of speech, in both healthy and dysarthric speakers. While the impact of clear speech has been studied on the articulation of individual segments, few studies have investigated its effects on coarticulation with multisegment sequences such as fricative-vowel. Objectives The goals of this study are to investigate, in healthy and dysarthric speech, the impact of clear speech on (a) the perception of anticipatory vowel coarticulation in fricatives and (b) the acoustic characteristics of this effect. Method Ten speakers with dysarthria secondary to idiopathic Parkinson's disease were recruited as well as 10 age- and sex-matched healthy speakers. A sentence reading task was performed in natural and clear speaking conditions. The sentences contained words with the initial fricatives /s/ and /ʃ/ preceded by /ə/ and followed by the vowels /i/, /y/, /u/, or /a/. For the perceptual measurements, five listeners were recruited and were asked to predict the upcoming word by listening only to the isolated fricative. Acoustic analyses consisted of spectral moment analysis (M1-M4) on averaged time series. Results Perceptual findings report that identification rates were improved with clear speech for the speakers with dysarthria, but only for the fricative-/i/ sequences. Error pattern analysis indicates that this improvement is associated with an increase in the roundness parameter (lip spreading) identification. Acoustic results are unclear for M1 and M3 but suggest that M2 and M4 differentiation between the rounded versus unrounded vowel contexts is increased with clear speech for the speakers with dysarthria. Discussion Taken together, these findings suggest that clear speech may improve lip coordination in dysarthric speakers with Parkinson's disease. However, the impact of clear speech on the acoustic measures of fricative spectral moments is somewhat limited. This suggests that these metrics, when taken individually, do not capture the entire complexity of fricative-vowel coarticulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".