The effect of rhythm on inter-gestural coupling of onset and vowel gestures and predictive timing in stuttering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Inter-gestural timing differs in persons who stutter (PWS). • Consonant-vowel (CV) gestures are coupled more tightly in PWS. • The synchronization of speech with rhythmic cues varies depending on the rhythm type. • PWS exhibit alterations in predictive timing. • Finger tapping stabilizes the speech motor system of PWS. In this study we investigate articulatory timing in fluent speech production in persons who stutter (PWS) and persons who do not stutter (PWNS) by focusing on consonant–vowel (CV)-timing, which refers to the coupling of onset consonant and vowel gestures, as well as on predictive timing, which describes the synchronization of the speech onset to a rhythmic event. These two timing mechanisms are particularly interesting to investigate in relation to stuttering, given that CV-timing is especially challenging for PWS and that they exhibit differences in predictive timing related to speech-motor and manual-motor tasks, suggesting that disturbances in inter-gestural coordination and auditory-motor integration may contribute to stuttering. To shed further light on this, we examine CV-timing and predictive timing under different rhythmic conditions. Twenty German-speaking adults (10 PWS and 10 PWNS) were recorded using electromagnetic articulography (EMA). Participants produced target words that started with a bilabial onset, followed by a vowel (/a/, /o/, or /u/) and were embedded in a carrier phrase in four different conditions: Unpaced (speaking), Tapping (speaking while concurrently tapping), Metronome (synchronizing speech to a metronome), and Metronome+Tapping (speaking to a metronome while concurrently tapping). We found evidence for both CV-timing and predictive timing differences between PWS and PWNS. Our results suggest that in general, PWS time CV gestures closer together. However, CV-timing differences were linked to condition in an unexpected way. As to predictive timing, PWS initiated their speech later to a metronome beat than PWNS but they did not differ when timing speech to their own finger tapping, indicating that motor-pacing may stabilize the speech motor system of PWS. In the Metronome+Tapping condition, the groups appeared to rely on different rhythmic cues. While PWNS timed their speech more towards the metronome beat, PWS synchronized their speech onset closer to the finger tap. We discuss that this difference could result from differences in CV-timing. Furthermore, the potential for future research on the interplay of non-verbal and verbal motor systems and the possible benefit for the stuttering population is 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".