MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400450470 · doi:10.1044/2024_jslhr-23-00673

Influence of Sensory Monitoring on Speech Breathing Planning Processes: An Exploratory Study in Aging Speakers Reporting Dyspnea

2024· article· en· W4400450470 on OpenAlexafffund
Maude Desjardins, Valérie Jomphe, Laurence Lagadec-Gaulin, Matthew L. Cohen, Katherine Verdolini Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersUniversity of ArizonaNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersUniversité Laval
KeywordsAudiologyUtteranceRepeated measures designVoicePsychologySensory systemBreathingMedicineSpeech recognitionCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Previous studies have suggested that inspirations during speech pauses are influenced by the length of adjacent utterances, owing to respiratory motor planning and physiological recovery processes. The goal of this study was to examine how attention to respiratory sensations may influence these processes in aging speakers with dyspnea, by measuring the effect of sensory monitoring on the relationship between utterance length and the occurrence of inspirations, as well as on functional voice and respiratory measures. METHOD: Seventeen adults aged 50 years and older with complaints of voicing-related dyspnea completed a repeated-measures protocol consisting of a 2-week baseline phase and a 4-week sensory monitoring phase. Audiovisual recordings of semistructured speech and self-report questionnaires were collected at study onset, after the baseline phase, and after the sensory monitoring phase. Repeated-measures logistic regressions were conducted to examine changes in the relationship between utterance length and the occurrence of inspirations in adjacent pauses, and repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to investigate any changes in functional voice and respiratory measures. RESULTS: Planning and recovery processes appeared to remain constant across the baseline phase. From postbaseline to postsensory monitoring timepoints, a strengthening of the relationship between the presence of an inspiration during a speech pause and the length of the subsequent-but not preceding-utterance was noted. Significant improvements were noted in voice-related handicap from study onset to postsensory monitoring, but no changes were reported in respiratory comfort during speech. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that respiratory planning processes, that is, the ability to plan breath intakes based on the length of upcoming utterances, may be modifiable behaviorally through targeted sensory monitoring. Further studies are warranted to validate the proposed role of respiratory sensation awareness in achieving skilled temporal coordination between voicing and breathing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207