Visual feedback of the tongue influences speech adaptation to a physical modification of the oral cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies examining sensorimotor adaptation of speech to changing sensory conditions have demonstrated a central role for both auditory and somatosensory feedback in speech motor learning. The potential influence of visual feedback of oral articulators, which is not typically available during speech production but may nonetheless enhance oral motor control, remains poorly understood. The present study explores the influence of ultrasound visual feedback of the tongue on adaptation of speech production (focusing on the sound /s/) to a physical perturbation of the oral articulators (prosthesis altering the shape of the hard palate). Two visual feedback groups were tested that differed in the two-dimensional plane being imaged (coronal or sagittal) during practice producing /s/ words, along with a no-visual-feedback control group. Participants in the coronal condition were found to adapt their speech production across a broader range of acoustic spectral moments and syllable contexts than the no-feedback controls. In contrast, the sagittal group showed reduced adaptation compared to no-feedback controls. The results indicate that real-time visual feedback of the tongue is spontaneously integrated during speech motor adaptation, with effects that can enhance or interfere with oral motor learning depending on compatibility of the visual articulatory information with requirements of the speaking task.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".