Auditory plasticity and sensorimotor learning in speech production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have shown the speech motor system to be highly flexible and responsive to changes in sensory input, revealing a central role for both auditory and somatosensory feedback in the acquisition and maintenance of speech motor control. Consistent with these studies, models of speech production have highlighted the role of accurate, stable sensory representations that serve, in part, as the goals of speech movements. A separate body of work has demonstrated that auditory-sensory representations of speech sounds are not perfectly stable, but rather exhibit rapid adaptation to changing input conditions in children and adults. The plasticity of auditory representations has important implications for the control of speech production, both in early speech motor development and in the sensory-based maintenance of speech accuracy that characterizes adult speech motor control. Here, we describe two studies that explore the link between sensory and motor plasticity in the speech motor system. The studies combine the paradigm of sensorimotor adaptation (altering auditory feedback during speech production) with measures and manipulations of auditory-perceptual representations of speech sounds. The results show not only that auditory speech targets can be rapidly altered, but that changes in sensory representations can have a direct impact on speech motor learning.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".