The role of auditory feedback in speech development: A study of compensation strategies for a lip-tube perturbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of auditory feedback in speech development was investigated through a study of compensation strategies for a lip-tube perturbation. Acoustic, articulatory, and perceptual analyses of the vowels /i/, /y/, and /u/ produced by ten 4-year-old French speakers and ten adult French speakers were conducted under two conditions: normal and with a 15-mm-diameter tube (for /y/ and /u/) or a 5-mm-diameter tube (for /i/) inserted between the lips. Ultrasound and acoustic recordings of isolated vowels were made in normal condition before any perturbation (N1), for each of the 20 trials in the perturbed condition (P), and in normal condition after the perturbed trials (N2). Data reveal that adult participants moved their tongue in the P condition more than children subjects, to compensate for F1 and F2 alteration induced by the tube. Except for /y/, the perturbation was generally at least partly compensated during the perturbed trials in adults and children, but children did not show a typical learning effect. Results are analyzed from the perspective of (i) goal specification in speech production in the acoustic and/or somatosensory domain, and (ii) the maturity of representations of the motor apparatus in the brain.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".