Purpose This work provides a quantitative assessment of the positional tracking accuracy of the NDI Wave Speech Research System. Method Three experiments were completed: (a) static rigid-body tracking across different locations in the electromagnetic field volume, (b) dynamic rigid-body tracking across different locations within the electromagnetic field volume, and (c) human jaw-movement tracking during speech. Rigid-body experiments were completed for 4 different instrumentation settings, permuting 2 electromagnetic field volume sizes with and without automated reference sensor processing. Results Within the anthropometrically pertinent “near field” (< 200 mm) of the NDI Wave field generator, at the 300-mm 3 volume setting, 88% of dynamic positional errors were < 0.5 mm and 98% were < 1.0 mm. Extreme tracking errors (> 2 mm) occurred within the near field for < 1% of position samples. For human jaw-movement tracking, 95% of position samples had < 0.5 mm errors for 9 out of 10 subjects. Conclusions Static tracking accuracy is modestly superior to dynamic tracking accuracy. Dynamic tracking accuracy is best for the 300-mm 3 field setting in the 200-mm near field. The use of automated head correction has no deleterious effect on tracking. Tracking errors for jaw movements during speech are typically < 0.5 mm.
Listening speech sounds activates motor and premotor areas in addition to temporal and parietal brain regions. These activations are somatotopically localized according to the effectors recruited in the production of particular phonemes. Previous work demonstrated that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of speech motor centers somatotopically altered speech perception, suggesting a role for the motor system. However, these effects seemed to occur only under adverse listening conditions, suggesting that degraded speech may stimulate listeners to adopt unnatural neural strategies relying on motor centers. Here, we investigated whether naturally occurring interspeaker variability, which did not affect task difficulty, made a speech discrimination task sensitive to TMS interference. In this paradigm, TMS over tongue and lips motor representations somatotopically altered the discrimination time of speech. Furthermore, the TMS-induced effect correlated with listeners' similarity judgments between listeners' and speakers' speech productions. Thus, the degree of motor recruitment depends on the perceived distance between listener and speaker. This result supports the claim that discriminating others' speech pattern requires the contribution of the listener's own motor repertoire. We conclude that motor recruitment in speech perception can be a natural product of discriminating speech in a normally variable and unpredictable environment, not merely related to task difficulty.
The activation of listener's motor system during speech processing was first demonstrated by the enhancement of electromyographic tongue potentials as evoked by single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over tongue motor cortex. This technique is, however, technically challenging and enables only a rather coarse measurement of this motor mirroring. Here, we applied TMS to listeners' tongue motor area in association with ultrasound tissue Doppler imaging to describe fine-grained tongue kinematic synergies evoked by passive listening to speech. Subjects listened to syllables requiring different patterns of dorso-ventral and antero-posterior movements (/ki/, /ko/, /ti/, /to/). Results show that passive listening to speech sounds evokes a pattern of motor synergies mirroring those occurring during speech production. Moreover, mirror motor synergies were more evident in those subjects showing good performances in discriminating speech in noise demonstrating a role of the speech-related mirror system in feed-forward processing the speaker's ongoing motor plan.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.