Literature DB >> 12398469

Economy of effort in different speaking conditions. II. Kinematic performance spaces for cyclical and speech movements.

Joseph S Perkell1, Majid Zandipour.   

Abstract

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the kinematic manipulations used by speakers in different speaking conditions are influenced by kinematic performance limits. A range of kinematic parameter values was elicited by having seven subjects produce cyclical CV movements of lips, tongue blade and tongue dorsum (/ba/, /da/, /ga/), at rates ranging from 1 to 6 Hz. The resulting measures were used to establish speaker- and articulator-specific kinematic performance spaces, defined by movement duration, displacement and peak speed. These data were compared with speech movement data produced by the subjects in several different speaking conditions in the companion study (Perkell et al., 2002). The amount of overlap of the speech data and cyclical data varied across speakers, from almost no overlap to complete overlap. Generally, for a given movement duration, speech movements were larger than cyclical movements, indicating that the speech movements were faster and were produced with greater effort, according to the performance space analysis. It was hypothesized that the cyclical movements of the tongue and lips were slower than the speech movements because they were more constrained by (coupled to) the relatively massive mandible. To test this hypothesis, a comparison was made of cyclical movements in maxillary versus mandibular frames of reference. The results indicate that the cyclical movements were not strongly constrained by mandible movements. The overall results generally indicate that the cyclical task did not succeed in defining the upper limits of kinematic performance spaces within which the speech data were confined. Thus, the hypothesis that performance limits influence speech kinematics could not be tested effectively. The differences between the speech and cyclical movements may be due to other factors, such as differences in speakers' "skill" with the two types of movement, or the size of the movements--the speech movements were larger, probably because of a well-defined target for the primary, stressed vowel.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12398469     DOI: 10.1121/1.1506368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  8 in total

1.  Influence of bolus consistency on lingual behaviors in sequential swallowing.

Authors:  Catriona M Steele; Pascal H H M Van Lieshout
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.438

2.  Estimating mandibular motion based on chin surface targets during speech.

Authors:  Jordan R Green; Erin M Wilson; Yu-Tsai Wang; Christopher A Moore
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  The dynamics of lingual-mandibular coordination during liquid swallowing.

Authors:  Catriona M Steele; Pascal H H M Van Lieshout
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.438

4.  Vowel-related tongue movements in speech: straight or curved paths? (L).

Authors:  Anders Löfqvist
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Tongue- and Jaw-Specific Contributions to Acoustic Vowel Contrast Changes in the Diphthong /ai/ in Response to Slow, Loud, and Clear Speech.

Authors:  Antje S Mefferd
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Indirect estimates of jaw muscle tension in children with suspected hypertonia, children with suspected hypotonia, and matched controls.

Authors:  Kathryn P Connaghan; Christopher A Moore
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Estimating feedforward vs. feedback control of speech production through kinematic analyses of unperturbed articulatory movements.

Authors:  Kwang S Kim; Ludo Max
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  The impact of shared knowledge on speakers' prosody.

Authors:  Amandine Michelas; Cécile Cau; Maud Champagne-Lavau
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.