Producing whole speech events: Anticipatory lip compression in bilabial stops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilabial stops /b/, /p/, and /m/ ostensibly share a common lip constriction. Recent evidence shows that different bilabial stops involve distinct facial muscle activations, suggesting that oral speech movements anticipate aerodynamic conditions [Gick et al. 2pSC1 Proc. Acoust. 2012 H.K.]. The present study investigates how the lips themselves behave in whole speech events. Existing models of speech production governing only articulatory motions predict that lip compression would respond to changes in aerodynamic conditions rather than anticipating such changes; a model that includes whole events predicts anticipatory activation of lip muscles with concomitant kinematic lip compression, but only in cases where a real increase in air pressure is expected. Lip kinematics were recorded using OptoTrak to trace lip movements of bilabial stops in response to imperative acoustic stimuli. Results show consistent anticipatory lip compression in spoken /b/, but not in non-speech jaw opening movements and only sporadic compression in mouthed /b/, where air pressure is not expected to increase. Biomechanical simulation using an orofacial model developed within the Artisynth simulation toolkit (www.artisynth.org) confirms anticipatory muscle activations. These findings support a model of speech tasks wherein coordinated body-level muscular systems govern whole speech events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".