Effects of visual perception of gravity on tongue posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual perception of gravity change may impact tongue posture during speech production. Previous studies [Chander et al., 2019, Behav. Sci., 9(11)] report anticipatory visual disturbances induce compensatory postural behavior in the human body and [Philips et al., 2022, Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci., 23(1)] showed the magnitude of postural response is dependent on velocity and direction of movement. Prior research [Assländer et al., 2023, Sci. Rep., 13(1), 2594] investigated the visual component impact on body posture balance in virtual-reality. Building on [Shamei et al., 2023, Sci. Rep. 13(1), 8231] investigation of postural adaptation in microgravity, the current study investigates postural behavior during spoken production of elongated vowels through a gravitational virtual-reality environment. Ultrasound imaging measured the impact of tongue posture for vowel production in an immersive virtual-reality rollercoaster through gravitationally stable, rising, and falling conditions. Acoustic analyses compared the production of elongated vowels [i, e, o, u, ɑ] across conditions. The falling condition is predicted to have the highest F1 followed by the leveled, and raising conditions. F1 will be reported by comparing the tongue height across conditions. Implications for postural adaptation in virtual-reality conditions will be discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".