Facial posture as a phonetic prime for memory retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial postures influence the perception of speech towards sounds with similar motor configurations [Yeung and Scott, J. Exper. Psych. 150, 983 (2021)]. However, it remains unknown whether facial posture can serve as a phonetic prime for the recall of speech. The present study tests whether maintaining a smile improves the recall of speech sounds with similar kinematics and somatosensory input (e.g., high front vowel /i/) [Ogane etal., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 148, EL279–EL284 (2020)]. In the training phase, a list of monosyllabic words containing /i/, /a/, and /u/ vowels is presented aurally to participants maintaining a neutral expression. In the recall phase, participants are asked to recall these words in one of two conditions, maintaining either a smile or a neutral expression. Improved recall for tokens containing /i/ would suggest facial postures act as phonetic primes for memory retrieval. The experiment is ongoing; results will be presented and discussed. [Work by the NIH and NSERC].
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".