Compensatory Articulation Errors in Patients With Velopharyngeal Dysfunction and Palatal Anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and types of compensatory articulations (CAs) in nonsyndromic patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) and various palatal anomalies and to determine the relationship between the frequency of CAs, type of palatal anomaly, and phonological errors. Method: A total of 783 nonsyndromic, Hebrew-speaking patients with VPD and various palatal anomalies (cleft lip and palate [CLP], cleft palate [CP], submucous CP [SMCP], occult submucous CP [OSMCP], or non-CP) were studied retrospectively. Perceptual VPD tests, including articulation and phonological assessment, were conducted. CAs were described as below the level of the defect in the vocal tract (abnormal backing of oral targets to post-uvular place) or in front of it within the oral cavity (palatalization) and at the velopharyngeal port. Results: Among 783 patients, 213 (27.2%) had CAs. Most CAs (18.4%) occurred below the level of the defect, followed by CAs at the velopharyngeal port (12.0%) or in front of it (4.9%). No differences were found in the frequency of CAs between patients with CP (47.8%) or CLP (52.6%) and between those with non-CP (13.6%) or OSMCP (14.7%). SMCP patients had lower frequency of CAs (29.8%) than CP (p = .003) and CLP (p = .002) patients but higher frequency than OSMCP (p = .002) and non-CP (p = .002) patients did. Among the 783 patients, 247 (31.5%) had phonological errors. A higher frequency of phonological errors was found in patients with CAs (55.4%) compared to those without (22.6%) and in all palatal anomaly groups except CLP (31.4% vs. 23.9%). Conclusions: CAs in nonsyndromic patients with VPD remained relatively high in all age groups, up to adulthood. CAs are influenced by inadequate velar length following palatal repair, as well as by oral structural abnormalities, whereas poor muscle function due to OSMCP and/or abnormal size and/or shape of nasopharynx has less influence. Errors produced in front of the velopharyngeal port are influenced by the structural anomaly of CLP. This information may contribute to general phonetic and phonological theories and genetic investigations about CP anomalies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".