Robustness of lateral tongue bracing in second language speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral tongue bracing, a universal speech posture, is an actively maintained robust position, akin to standing and locomotion [Gick et al., 2017, JSLHR 60; Liu et al., 2022, JIPA, Phonetica 79]. Studying the robustness of bracing in second-language (L2) speakers can provide insight into learning of speech posture. In this study, we investigate the extent to which speaking in a second language affects the robustness of lateral tongue bracing compared to first language (L1) speech. Participants read two short texts, one in their native language and one in their second language, under a 10 mm bite-block condition. Intra-oral videos are analyzed for the percentage of time bracing occurred in continuous speech. Our preliminary results showed a decrease in the overall percentage of lateral contact during L2 continuous speech compared to L1. These insights invite a reassessment of our existing parallel posture model. We suggest adapting this model to account for the cognitive demands of L2, and the possible role of learning language-specific articulatory settings in postural robustness for L2 speakers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".