Mental processing demands on tongue position during rhotic production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive load may affect tongue position during speech production. Previous studies demonstrate that the tongue is influenced by the central and autonomic nervous systems [Bourdiol et al., 2013, Journal of oral rehabilitation, 40(6)] and increased cognitive load impacts front and back vowel formants [Huttunen et al., 2011, JASA 129]. Little is known about this effect, including whether it is moderated by pressure to maintain acoustic targets. North American English [ɹ] is known to allow substantial articulatory variation while maintaining a relatively stable acoustic (F3) target [Guenther et al., 1999, JASA 105]. The present study investigates variation of tongue position for North American English [ɹ] under increasing levels of cognitive load using a Stroop task [Tomassi et al., 2025, JSLHR, 1–20]. We hypothesize that under high cognitive load, the articulation of English [ɹ] may show intra-speaker variation in tongue shape. Ultrasound imaging was used to measure tongue position during speech across congruent and incongruent trials, and speech errors were filtered out. Preliminary results indicate that tongue shape varies both across and within speakers when producing [ɹ] and [Éš] across congruent and incongruent trials. Implications for speech processing will be discussed. [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 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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".