Tongue bracing robustness under perturbation: Comparison of L1 versus L2 speech with and without bite-block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral tongue bracing is a universal speech posture observed across many languages [Gick et al., 2017, JSLHR 60; Liu et al., 2022, JIPA, Phonetica 79]. Previous work has found that under perturbation by 10 mm bite-blocks, there is less lateral contact during a speaker’s L2 speech compared to their L1 speech [Bengtson et al., 2023, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154]. However, the research did not investigate lateral contact without bite-blocks and the effect of this perturbation on posture remains unclear. The present study addresses this by comparing a speaker’s L1 and L2 speech both with and without bite-block perturbation, with the hypothesis that posture during speech movement is more robustly maintained under perturbation with more language experience. Participants will read two short texts in their L1 and L2 separately, both with and without 10 mm bite-blocks, and F1/F2 of cardinal vowels will be compared between bite-block conditions for each language. L2 proficiency will be collected for each participant and results will be reported with relevance to posture and speech movement coordination for L1 versus L2, with implications discussed for proficiency. [Work supported by NSERC].
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".