Response patterns to vowel formant perturbations in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory feedback is an important component of speech motor control, but its precise role in developing speech is less understood. The role of auditory feedback in development was probed by perturbing the speech of children 4–9 years old. The vowel sound /ɛ/ was shifted to /æ/ in real time and presented to participants as their own auditory feedback. Analyses of the resultant formant magnitude changes in the participants' speech indicated that children compensated and adapted by adjusting their formants to oppose the perturbation. Older and younger children responded to perturbation differently in F1 and F2. The compensatory change in F1 was greater for younger children, whereas the increase in F2 was greater for older children. Adaptation aftereffects were observed in both groups. Exploratory directional analyses in the two-dimensional formant space indicated that older children responded more directly and less variably to the perturbation than younger children, shifting their vowels back toward the vowel sound /ɛ/ to oppose the perturbation. Findings support the hypothesis that auditory feedback integration continues to develop between the ages of 4 and 9 years old such that the differences in the adaptive and compensatory responses arise between younger and older children despite receiving the same auditory feedback perturbation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".