{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04748603351955307, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01675977653631285, 'mean_word_length': 6.391752577319588, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perspectives on the Edinburgh study of speech breathing.

This article offers critical perspectives on the Edinburgh study of speech breathing reported in this journal (Draper, Ladefoged, & Whitteridge, 1959) and elsewhere (Draper, Ladefoged, & Whitteridge, 1960; Ladefoged, Draper, & Whitteridge, 1958). These perspectives concern: (a) errors in establishing a backdrop of mechanical information; (b) discrepancies between data and statements about them; (c) counterpredictive features between data and other knowledge about breathing; and (d) inadequacies in acquiring, portraying, and interpreting electromyographic information relative to the muscular contributions of different parts of the breathing apparatus.