Adaptive AT2 Optimal Algorithms on reconfigurable meshes

Recently a few self-simulation algorithms have been developed to execute algorithms on a reconfigurable mesh (RM) of size smaller than recommended in those algorithms. Optimal slowdown, in self-simulation, has been achieved with the compromise that the resultant algorithms fail to remain AT2 optimal. In this paper we have introduced, for the first time, the idea of adaptive algorithm which runs on RM of variable sizes without compromising the AT2 optimality. We have supported our idea by developing adaptive algorithms, for sorting items and computing the contour of maximal elements of a set of planar points on RM. We have also conjectured that to obtain an AT2 algorithm to solve a problem of size n with I(n) information content on an RM of size p x q where pq=kI(n), it is sufficient to form buses of length O (k)

Optimal computation of the contour of maximal elements on constrained reconfigurable meshes

The Reconfigurable Mesh (RM) attracted criticism for its key assumption that a message can be broadcast in constant time independent of bus length To account for this limit Beresford-Smith et al. have recently proposed k-constrained RM where buses of length at most k, a constant, are allowed to b formed. Straightforward simulations of optimal RM algorithms on this constrained RM model are found to be non-optimal. This paper presents two optimal algorithms to compute the contour of maximal elements of a set of planar points

Interactive, Computation Assisted Design Tools

Realistic modeling, rendering, and animation of physical and virtual shapes have matured significantly over the last few decades. Yet, the creation and subsequent modeling of three-dimensional shapes remains a tedious task which requires not only artistic and creative talent, but also significant technical skill. The perfection witnessed in computer-generated feature films requires extensive manual processing and touch-ups. Every researcher working in graphics and related fields has likely experienced the difficulty of creating even a moderate-quality 3D model, whether based on a mental concept, a hand sketch, or inspirations from one or more photographs or existing 3D designs. This situation, frequently referred to as the content creation bottleneck, is arguably the major obstacle to making computer graphics as ubiquitous as it could be. Classical modeling techniques have primarily dealt with local or low-level geometric entities (e.g., points or triangles) and criteria (e.g., smoothness or detail preservation), lacking the freedom necessary to produce novel and creative content. A major unresolved challenge towards a new unhindered design paradigm is how to support the design process to create visually pleasing and yet functional objects by users who lack specialized skills and training. Most of the existing geometric modeling tools are intended either for use by experts (e.g., computer-aided design [CAD] systems) or for modeling objects whose visual aspects are the only consideration (e.g., computer graphics modeling systems). Furthermore, rapid prototyping, brought on by technological advances 3D printing has drastically altered production and consumption practices. These technologies empower individuals to design and produce original objects, customized according to their own needs. Thus, a new generation of design tools is needed to support both the creation of designs within the domain's constraints, that not only allows capturing the novice user's design intent but also meets the fabrication constraints such that the designs can be realized with minimal tweaking by experts. To fill this void, the premise of this thesis relies on the following two tenets: 1. users benefit from an interactive design environment that allows novice users to continuously explore a design space and immediately see the tradeoffs of their design choices. 2. the machine's processing power is used to assist and guide the user to maintain constraints imposed by the problem domain (e.g., fabrication/material constraints) as well as help the user in exploring feasible solutions close to their design intent. Finding the appropriate balance between interactive design tools and the computation needed for productive workflows is the problem addressed by this thesis. This thesis makes the following contributions: 1. We take a close look at thin shells--materials that have a thickness significantly smaller than other dimensions. Towards the goal of achieving interactive and controllable simulations we realize a particular geometric insight to develop an efficient bending model for the simulation of thin shells. Under isometric deformations (deformations that undergo little to no stretching), we can reduce the nonlinear bending energy into a cubic polynomial that has a linear Hessian. This linear Hessian can be further approximated with a constant one, providing significant speedups during simulation. We also build upon this simple bending model and show how orthotropic materials can be modeled and simulated efficiently. 2. We study the theory of Chebyshev nets--a geometric model of woven materials using a two-dimensional net composed of inextensible yarns. The theory of Chebyshev nets sheds some light on their limitations in globally covering a target surface. As it turns out, Chebyshev nets are a good geometric model for wire meshes, free-form surfaces composed of woven wires arranged in a regular grid. In the context of designing sculptures with wire mesh, we rely on the mathematical theory laid out by Hazzidakis~\cite{Hazzidakis1879} to determine an artistically driven workflow for approximately covering a target surface with a wire mesh, while globally maintaining material and fabrication constraints. This alleviates the user from worrying about feasibility and allows focus on design. 3. Finally, we present a practical design tool for the design and exploration of reconfigurables, defined as an object or collection of objects whose transformation between various states defines its functionality or aesthetic appeal (e.g., a mechanical assembly composed of interlocking pieces, a transforming folding bicycle, or a space-saving arrangement of apartment furniture). A novel space-time collision detection and response technique is presented that can be used to create an interactive workflow for managing and designing objects with various states. This work also considers a graph-based timeline during the design process instead of the traditional linear timeline and shows its many benefits as well as challenges for the design of reconfigurables

Predicting power scalability in a reconfigurable platform

This thesis focuses on the evolution of digital hardware systems. A reconfigurable platform is proposed and analysed based on thin-body, fully-depleted silicon-on-insulator Schottky-barrier transistors with metal gates and silicide source/drain (TBFDSBSOI). These offer the potential for simplified processing that will allow them to reach ultimate nanoscale gate dimensions. Technology CAD was used to show that the threshold voltage in TBFDSBSOI devices will be controllable by gate potentials that scale down with the channel dimensions while remaining within appropriate gate reliability limits. SPICE simulations determined that the magnitude of the threshold shift predicted by TCAD software would be sufficient to control the logic configuration of a simple, regular array of these TBFDSBSOI transistors as well as to constrain its overall subthreshold power growth. Using these devices, a reconfigurable platform is proposed based on a regular 6-input, 6-output NOR LUT block in which the logic and configuration functions of the array are mapped onto separate gates of the double-gate device. A new analytic model of the relationship between power (P), area (A) and performance (T) has been developed based on a simple VLSI complexity metric of the form ATσ = constant. As σ defines the performance “return” gained as a result of an increase in area, it also represents a bound on the architectural options available in power-scalable digital systems. This analytic model was used to determine that simple computing functions mapped to the reconfigurable platform will exhibit continuous power-area-performance scaling behavior. A number of simple arithmetic circuits were mapped to the array and their delay and subthreshold leakage analysed over a representative range of supply and threshold voltages, thus determining a worse-case range for the device/circuit-level parameters of the model. Finally, an architectural simulation was built in VHDL-AMS. The frequency scaling described by σ, combined with the device/circuit-level parameters predicts the overall power and performance scaling of parallel architectures mapped to the array

Automatic visual recognition using parallel machines

Invariant features and quick matching algorithms are two major concerns in the area of automatic visual recognition. The former reduces the size of an established model database, and the latter shortens the computation time. This dissertation, will discussed both line invariants under perspective projection and parallel implementation of a dynamic programming technique for shape recognition. The feasibility of using parallel machines can be demonstrated through the dramatically reduced time complexity. In this dissertation, our algorithms are implemented on the AP1000 MIMD parallel machines. For processing an object with a features, the time complexity of the proposed parallel algorithm is O(n), while that of a uniprocessor is O(n2). The two applications, one for shape matching and the other for chain-code extraction, are used in order to demonstrate the usefulness of our methods. Invariants from four general lines under perspective projection are also discussed in here. In contrast to the approach which uses the epipolar geometry, we investigate the invariants under isotropy subgroups. Theoretically speaking, two independent invariants can be found for four general lines in 3D space. In practice, we show how to obtain these two invariants from the projective images of four general lines without the need of camera calibration. A projective invariant recognition system based on a hypothesis-generation-testing scheme is run on the hypercube parallel architecture. Object recognition is achieved by matching the scene projective invariants to the model projective invariants, called transfer. Then a hypothesis-generation-testing scheme is implemented on the hypercube parallel architecture

Retainer-Free Optopalatographic Device Design and Evaluation as a Feedback Tool in Post-Stroke Speech and Swallowing Therapy

Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term motor disability, including oro-facial impairments which affect speech and swallowing. Over the last decades, rehabilitation programs have evolved from utilizing mainly compensatory measures to focusing on recovering lost function. In the continuing effort to improve recovery, the concept of biofeedback has increasingly been leveraged to enhance self-efficacy, motivation and engagement during training. Although both speech and swallowing disturbances resulting from oro-facial impairments are frequent sequelae of stroke, efforts to develop sensing technologies that provide comprehensive and quantitative feedback on articulator kinematics and kinetics, especially those of the tongue, and specifically during post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy have been sparse. To that end, such a sensing device needs to accurately capture intraoral tongue motion and contact with the hard palate, which can then be translated into an appropriate form of feedback, without affecting tongue motion itself and while still being light-weight and portable. This dissertation proposes the use of an intraoral sensing principle known as optopalatography to provide such feedback while also exploring the design of optopalatographic devices itself for use in dysphagia and dysarthria therapy. Additionally, it presents an alternative means of holding the device in place inside the oral cavity with a newly developed palatal adhesive instead of relying on dental retainers, which previously limited device usage to a single person. The evaluation was performed on the task of automatically classifying different functional tongue exercises from one another with application in dysphagia therapy, whereas a phoneme recognition task was conducted with application in dysarthria therapy. Results on the palatal adhesive suggest that it is indeed a valid alternative to dental retainers when device residence time inside the oral cavity is limited to several tens of minutes per session, which is the case for dysphagia and dysarthria therapy. Functional tongue exercises were classified with approximately 61 % accuracy across subjects, whereas for the phoneme recognition task, tense vowels had the highest recognition rate, followed by lax vowels and consonants. In summary, retainer-free optopalatography has the potential to become a viable method for providing real-time feedback on tongue movements inside the oral cavity, but still requires further improvements as outlined in the remarks on future development.:1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Goals and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Basics of post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy 2.1 Dysarthria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Treatment rationale and potential of biofeedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 Tongue motion sensing 3.1 Contact-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1 Electropalatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.2 Manometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.3 Capacitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Non-contact based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Electromagnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Permanent magnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3 Optopalatography (related work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 Electro-optical stomatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Extraoral sensing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5 Summary, comparison and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Fundamentals of optopalatography 4.1 Important radiometric quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.1 Solid angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.2 Radiant flux and radiant intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.3 Irradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.4 Radiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2 Sensing principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.1 Analytical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Monte Carlo ray tracing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.3 Data-driven models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3 A priori device design consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.1 Optoelectronic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.2 Additional electrical components and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3.3 Intraoral sensor layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Intraoral device anchorage 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.1 Mucoadhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1.2 Considerations for the palatal adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.1 Polymer selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.2 Fabrication method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2.3 Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.4 PEO tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.5 Connection to the intraoral sensor’s encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.6 Formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 Initial formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 Final OPG adhesive formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 Initial device design with application in dysphagia therapy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6.2 Optode and optical sensor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2.1 Optode and optical sensor evaluation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2.2 Selected optical sensor characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.4 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.3 Device design and hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.1 Block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.2 Optode placement and circuit board dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.3 Firmware description and measurement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.3.4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.3.5 Fully assembled OPG device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.4 Evaluation on the gesture recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Exercise selection, setup and recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Data corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Sequence pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.4 Choice of classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4.5 Training and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7 Improved device design with application in dysarthria therapy 7.1 Device design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.1.1 Design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7.1.2 General system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.3 Intraoral sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.4 Receiver and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.1.5 Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.2 Hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.2.1 Optode placement and circuit board layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.2.2 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7.3 Device characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7.3.1 Photodiode transient response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.3.2 Current source and rise time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.3.3 Multiplexer switching speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3.4 Measurement cycle and firmware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7.3.5 In vitro measurement accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.3.6 Optode measurement stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.4 Evaluation on the phoneme recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.1 Corpus selection and recording setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.2 Annotation and sensor data post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.4.4 Classifier and feature selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7.4.5 Evaluation paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 7.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.1 Tongue distance curve prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.2 Tongue contact patterns and contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 7.5.3 Phoneme recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 7.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8 Conclusion and future work 115 9 Appendix 9.1 Analytical light transport models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 9.2 Meshed Monte Carlo method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 9.3 Laser safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 9.4 Current source modulation voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9.5 Transimpedance amplifier’s frequency responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 9.6 Initial OPG device’s PCB layout and circuit diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.7 Improved OPG device’s PCB layout and circuit diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 9.8 Test station layout drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Bibliography 152Der Schlaganfall ist eine der häufigsten Ursachen für motorische Langzeitbehinderungen, einschließlich solcher im Mund- und Gesichtsbereich, deren Folgen u.a. Sprech- und Schluckprobleme beinhalten, welche sich in den beiden Symptomen Dysarthrie und Dysphagie äußern. In den letzten Jahrzehnten haben sich Rehabilitationsprogramme für die Behandlung von motorisch ausgeprägten Schlaganfallsymptomatiken substantiell weiterentwickelt. So liegt nicht mehr die reine Kompensation von verlorengegangener motorischer Funktionalität im Vordergrund, sondern deren aktive Wiederherstellung. Dabei hat u.a. die Verwendung von sogenanntem Biofeedback vermehrt Einzug in die Therapie erhalten, um Motivation, Engagement und Selbstwahrnehmung von ansonsten unbewussten Bewegungsabläufen seitens der Patienten zu fördern. Obwohl jedoch Sprech- und Schluckstörungen eine der häufigsten Folgen eines Schlaganfalls darstellen, wird diese Tatsache nicht von der aktuellen Entwicklung neuer Geräte und Messmethoden für quantitatives und umfassendes Biofeedback reflektiert, insbesondere nicht für die explizite Erfassung intraoraler Zungenkinematik und -kinetik und für den Anwendungsfall in der Schlaganfalltherapie. Ein möglicher Grund dafür liegt in den sehr strikten Anforderungen an ein solche Messmethode: Sie muss neben Portabilität idealerweise sowohl den Kontakt zwischen der Zunge und dem Gaumen, als auch die dreidimensionale Bewegung der Zunge in der Mundhöhle erfassen, ohne dabei die Artikulation selbst zu beeinflussen. Um diesen Anforderungen gerecht zu werden, wird in dieser Dissertation das Messprinzip der Optopalatographie untersucht, mit dem Schwerpunkt auf der Anwendung in der Dysarthrie- und Dysphagietherapie. Dies beinhaltet auch die Entwicklung eines entsprechenden Gerätes sowie dessen Befestigungsmethode in der Mundhöhle über ein dediziertes Mundschleimhautadhäsiv. Letzteres umgeht das bisherige Problem der notwendigen Anpassung eines solchen intraoralen Gerätes an einen einzelnen Nutzer. Für die Anwendung in der Dysphagietherapie erfolgte die Evaluation anhand einer automatischen Erkennung von Mobilisationsübungen der Zunge, welche routinemäßig in der funktionalen Dysphagietherapie durchgeführt werden. Für die Anwendung in der Dysarthrietherapie wurde eine Lauterkennung durchgeführt. Die Resultate bezüglich der Verwendung des Mundschleimhautadhäsives suggerieren, dass dieses tatsächlich eine valide Alternative zu den bisher verwendeten Techniken zur Befestigung intraoraler Geräte in der Mundhöhle darstellt. Zungenmobilisationsübungen wurden über Probanden hinweg mit einer Rate von 61 % erkannt, wogegen in der Lauterkennung Langvokale die höchste Erkennungsrate erzielten, gefolgt von Kurzvokalen und Konsonanten. Zusammenfassend lässt sich konstatieren, dass das Prinzip der Optopalatographie eine ernstzunehmende Option für die intraorale Erfassung von Zungenbewegungen darstellt, wobei weitere Entwicklungsschritte notwendig sind, welche im Ausblick zusammengefasst sind.:1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Goals and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Basics of post-stroke speech and swallowing therapy 2.1 Dysarthria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Treatment rationale and potential of biofeedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 Tongue motion sensing 3.1 Contact-based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1 Electropalatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.2 Manometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.3 Capacitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 Non-contact based methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1 Electromagnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2 Permanent magnetic articulography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.3 Optopalatography (related work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3 Electro-optical stomatography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Extraoral sensing techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.5 Summary, comparison and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Fundamentals of optopalatography 4.1 Important radiometric quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.1 Solid angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1.2 Radiant flux and radiant intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.3 Irradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1.4 Radiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2 Sensing principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.1 Analytical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.2 Monte Carlo ray tracing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.2.3 Data-driven models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Model comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3 A priori device design consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.1 Optoelectronic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3.2 Additional electrical components and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.3.3 Intraoral sensor layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5 Intraoral device anchorage 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1.1 Mucoadhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1.2 Considerations for the palatal adhesive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.1 Polymer selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.2.2 Fabrication method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.2.3 Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.4 PEO tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.5 Connection to the intraoral sensor’s encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5.2.6 Formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.1 Initial formulation evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.3.2 Final OPG adhesive formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6 Initial device design with application in dysphagia therapy 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 6.2 Optode and optical sensor selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6.2.1 Optode and optical sensor evaluation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.2.2 Selected optical sensor characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.3 Mapping from counts to millimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.2.4 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6.3 Device design and hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.1 Block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.2 Optode placement and circuit board dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6.3.3 Firmware description and measurement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 6.3.4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.3.5 Fully assembled OPG device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.4 Evaluation on the gesture recognition task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.1 Exercise selection, setup and recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.4.2 Data corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.3 Sequence pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.4.4 Choice of classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.4.5 Training and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7 Improved device design with application in dysarthria therapy 7.1 Device design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 7.1.1 Design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7.1.2 General system overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.3 Intraoral sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.1.4 Receiver and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7.1.5 Multiplexer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.2 Hardware implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .