Enhancing Speech Articulation Analysis using a Geometric Transformation of the X-ray Microbeam Dataset

Accurate analysis of speech articulation is crucial for speech analysis. However, X-Y coordinates of articulators strongly depend on the anatomy of the speakers and the variability of pellet placements, and existing methods for mapping anatomical landmarks in the X-ray Microbeam Dataset (XRMB) fail to capture the entire anatomy of the vocal tract. In this paper, we propose a new geometric transformation that improves the accuracy of these measurements. Our transformation maps anatomical landmarks' X-Y coordinates along the midsagittal plane onto six relative measures: Lip Aperture (LA), Lip Protusion (LP), Tongue Body Constriction Location (TTCL), Degree (TBCD), Tongue Tip Constriction Location (TTCL) and Degree (TTCD). Our novel contribution is the extension of the palate trace towards the inferred anterior pharyngeal line, which improves measurements of tongue body constriction

Intraspeaker Comparisons of Acoustic and Articulatory Variability in American English /r/ Productions

The purpose of this report is to test the hypothesis that speakers utilize an acoustic, rather than articulatory, planning space for speech production. It has been well-documented that many speakers of American English use different tongue configurations to produce /r/ in different phonetic contexts. The acoustic planning hypothesis suggests that although the /r/ configuration varies widely in different contexts, the primary acoustic cue for /r/, a dip in the F3 trajectory, will be less variable due to tradeoffs in articulatory variability, or trading relations, that help maintain a relatively constant F3 trajectory across phonetic contexts. Acoustic data and EMMA articulatory data from seven speakers producing /r/ in different phonetic contexts were analyzed. Visual inspection of the EMMA data at the point of F3 minimum revealed that each speaker appeared to use at least two of three trading relation strategies that would be expected to reduce F3 variability. Articulatory covariance measures confirmed that all seven speakers utilized a trading relation between tongue back height and tongue back horizontal position, six speakers utilized a trading relation between tongue tip height and tongue back height, and the speaker who did not use this latter strategy instead utilized a trading relation between tongue tip height and tongue back horizontal position. Estimates of F3 variability with and without the articulatory covariances indicated that F3 would be much higher for all speakers if the articulatory covariances were not utilized. These conclusions were further supported by a comparison of measured F3 variability to F3 variabilities estimated from the pellet data with and without articulatory covariances. In all subjects, the actual F3 variance was significantly lower than the F3 variance estimated without articulatory covariances, further supporting the conclusion that the articulatory trading relations were being used to reduce F3 variability. Together, these results strongly suggest that the neural control mechanisms underlying speech production make elegant use of trading relations between articulators to maintain a relatively invariant acoustic trace for /r/ across phonetic contexts

Intraspeaker Comparisons of Acoustic and Articulatory Variability in American English /r/ Productions

The purpose of this report is to test the hypothesis that speakers utilize an acoustic, rather than articulatory, planning space for speech production. It has been well-documented that many speakers of American English use different tongue configurations to produce /r/ in different phonetic contexts. The acoustic planning hypothesis suggests that although the /r/ configuration varies widely in different contexts, the primary acoustic cue for /r/, a dip in the F3 trajectory, will be less variable due to tradeoffs in articulatory variability, or trading relations, that help maintain a relatively constant F3 trajectory across phonetic contexts. Acoustic data and EMMA articulatory data from seven speakers producing /r/ in different phonetic contexts were analyzed. Visual inspection of the EMMA data at the point of F3 minimum revealed that each speaker appeared to use at least two of three trading relation strategies that would be expected to reduce F3 variability. Articulatory covariance measures confirmed that all seven speakers utilized a trading relation between tongue back height and tongue back horizontal position, six speakers utilized a trading relation between tongue tip height and tongue back height, and the speaker who did not use this latter strategy instead utilized a trading relation between tongue tip height and tongue back horizontal position. Estimates of F3 variability with and without the articulatory covariances indicated that F3 would be much higher for all speakers if the articulatory covariances were not utilized. These conclusions were further supported by a comparison of measured F3 variability to F3 variabilities estimated from the pellet data with and without articulatory covariances. In all subjects, the actual F3 variance was significantly lower than the F3 variance estimated without articulatory covariances, further supporting the conclusion that the articulatory trading relations were being used to reduce F3 variability. Together, these results strongly suggest that the neural control mechanisms underlying speech production make elegant use of trading relations between articulators to maintain a relatively invariant acoustic trace for /r/ across phonetic contexts

Articulatory Tradeoffs Reduce Acoustic Variability During American English /r/ Production

Acoustic and articulatory recordings reveal that speakers utilize systematic articulatory tradeoffs to maintain acoustic stability when producing the phoneme /r/. Distinct articulator configurations used to produce /r/ in various phonetic contexts show systematic tradeoffs between the cross-sectional areas of different vocal tract sections. Analysis of acoustic and articulatory variabilities reveals that these tradeoffs act to reduce acoustic variability, thus allowing large contextual variations in vocal tract shape; these contextual variations in turn apparently reduce the amount of articulatory movement required. These findings contrast with the widely held view that speaking involves a canonical vocal tract shape target for each phoneme.National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (1R29-DC02852-02, 5R01-DC01925-04, 1R03-C2576-0l); National Science Foundation (IRI-9310518

Digital Signal Processing

Contains summary of research and reports on sixteen research projects.U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-75-C-0852)National Science Foundation FellowshipNATO FellowshipU.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-75-C-0951)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS79-15226)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-77-C-0257)Bell LaboratoriesNational Science Foundation (Grant ECS80-07102)Schlumberger-Doll Research Center FellowshipHertz Foundation FellowshipGovernment of Pakistan ScholarshipU.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-77-C-0196)U.S. Air Force (Contract F19628-81-C-0002)Hughes Aircraft Company Fellowshi

Speech Communication

Contains reports on five research projects.C.J. Lebel FellowshipNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS07040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS04332)National Science Foundation (Grant 1ST 80-17599)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command Contract (N00039-85-C-0254)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command Contract (N00039-85-C-0341)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command Contract (N00039-85-C-0290

Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part IV, table of contents for Section 1, an introduction, reports on seven research projects and a list of publications.C.J. Lebel FellowshipDennis Klatt Memorial FundNational Institutes of Health Grant T32-DC00005National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00075National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00015National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00266National Institutes of Health Grant P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00776National Science Foundation Grant IRI 89-10561National Science Foundation Grant IRI 88-05680National Science Foundation Grant INT 90-2471

Speech Communication

Contains reports on five research projects.C.J. Lebel FellowshipNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NSO7040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS04332)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS21183)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1-NS23734)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS 8418733)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0254)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0341)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0290)National Institutes of Health (Grant RO1-NS21183), subcontract with Boston UniversityNational Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1-NS23734), subcontract with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmar

Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part IV, table of contents for Section 1 and reports on five research projects.Apple Computer, Inc.C.J. Lebel FellowshipNational Institutes of Health (Grant T32-NS07040)National Institutes of Health (Grant R01-NS04332)National Institutes of Health (Grant R01-NS21183)National Institutes of Health (Grant P01-NS23734)U.S. Navy / Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0254)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-82-K-0727

Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part V, table of contents for Section 1, reports on six research projects and a list of publications.C.J. Lebel FellowshipDennis Klatt Memorial FundNational Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00075National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC01291National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC01925National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC02125National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC02978National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC03007National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC02525National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00194National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00205National Institutes of Health Grant T32-DC00038National Science Foundation Grant IRI 89-05249National Science Foundation Grant IRI 93-14967National Science Foundation Grant INT 94-2114