Token-to-token variability and anticipatory coarticulation as indicators of maturity of speech motor control in 4-year-old children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's gestures do not appear to be executed with the same dexterity as adults'. Studies of arm movements have shown that young children's gestures are less accurate, more variable and slower than those of adults. This difference in behavior can be explained by a lack of experience with the sensory consequences of motor acts and still-developing forward models for the control of those acts. The hypothesis of immature and incomplete sensori-motor representations for speech in 4-year-old native speakers of Canadian French is addressed here through the analysis of ultrasound recordings of tongue contour kinematics and the speech signal from a corpus of isolated vowels and vowel-consonant-vowel sequences. Special attention is devoted to the analysis of vowel variability from two perspectives. Variability across repetitions in a single context provides information about the accuracy of the control. Contextual variability provides insights into the planning process as reflected in anticipatory coarticulation. Analysis of the observed lingual gestures will lead to improved understanding of the development of speech motor control and refinement of sensori-motor representations of speech. [Work supported by FQRNT project N 147877 and ANR project ANR-08-BLAN-0272]
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".