Lateral tongue bracing as a universal postural basis for speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral bracing refers to an intentional tongue posture whereby the sides of the tongue make contact with the sides of the palate and the upper molars. While previous research on this topic has focused mostly on English, the present study tests the hypothesis that lateral bracing provides a fundamental postural basis for speech and is present across languages. We predicted that, across multiple languages, the sides of the tongue should be more stable than the center and should stay in a relatively high position in the mouth throughout most of running speech. Using coronal ultrasound imaging, we measured tongue movement produced by speakers (N = 28) of six languages (Akan, Cantonese, English, Korean, Mandarin and Spanish). Across these languages, as predicted, the sides of the tongue throughout running speech were positioned higher in the mouth than the center, and the range of movement of the sides was significantly smaller than that of the center of the tongue. These findings support the view that the sides of the tongue maintain a braced posture across languages while speaking, potentially constituting a universal, rather than language-specific, postural basis for speech.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".