Typical and Atypical Development of Compensation to Altered Auditory Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory feedback, how we hear ourselves speak, plays an important role in the acquisition and maintenance of fluent speech. Although there is wide acceptance of the importance of auditory feedback control throughout development, little is known about how this develops or how the reliance on auditory feedback control may shift compared to other elements of speech motor control. This dissertation aimed to improve our understanding of the development of auditory feedback control and speech motor control in typically developing children and pediatric clinical populations through the exploration of responses to altered auditory feedback. In altered auditory feedback paradigms, small, often imperceptible, manipulations of auditory feedback result in participants adapting their movements to compensate for the perturbation. Study 1 is a scoping review examining child responses to fundamental and formant frequency altered auditory feedback. Findings highlight a gap in the literature: several studies are underpowered and limited age ranges are considered. Study 2 is a registered report proposing how data will be collected in a study of first formant (F1) altered auditory feedback in typically developing children 2-13 years. This study builds on the gaps found in Study 1, as broad age ranges have not previously been explored in pediatric responses to formant manipulated auditory feedback. Study 3 contrasted responses to F1 altered auditory feedback in typically developing children and children with an unexplained and relatively specific deficit in language learning called developmental language disorder (DLD). Results from this study revealed aberrant responses in children with DLD compared to typically developing children. Together, this work provides novel information about the development of auditory feedback, and speech motor control in typical and clinical pediatric populations, highlighting where future research is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".