slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Wodzinski, S.M., Hardin, S.A., Frisch, S.A., & Stearns, A.M., University of South Florida PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Wodzinski, S.M., Hardin, S.A., Frisch, S.A., & Stearns, A.M., University of South Florida

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Wodzinski, S.M., Hardin, S.A., Frisch, S.A., & Stearns, A.M., University of South Florida - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 76 Views
  • Uploaded on

Data collection techniques in the USF speech production and perception laboratory, and their reliability. Wodzinski, S.M., Hardin, S.A., Frisch, S.A., & Stearns, A.M., University of South Florida frisch@cas.usf.edu. This work supported by NIH-NIDCD R03 06164. Ideal Recording Setup.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Wodzinski, S.M., Hardin, S.A., Frisch, S.A., & Stearns, A.M., University of South Florida' - havily


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Data collection techniques in the USF speech production and perception laboratory,and their reliability

Wodzinski, S.M., Hardin, S.A.,

Frisch, S.A., & Stearns, A.M.,

University of South Florida

frisch@cas.usf.edu

This work supported by NIH-NIDCD R03 06164

ideal recording setup
Ideal Recording Setup
  • Head stabilized
    • Head location fixed
    • Probe location (relative to head) fixed
    • Stone (2004): Need consistent point of reference in images for measurement (cf. Whalen 2004 HOCUS system)
ideal recording setup1
Ideal Recording Setup
  • Jaw able to move freely
    • If probe location is fixed, jaw contact with probe makes this difficult
    • Need for ‘compressible acoustically transparent standoff’ (Stone 2004)
      • Compressible so jaw can move
      • Acoustically transparent so it does not interfere with ultrasound beam
head stabilization
Head Stabilization
  • Head location fixed by a ‘halo’
    • Current version pieced together with rods and clamps borrowed from the physics laboratory
    • Similar in spirit to the HATS system (Stone & Davis 1995)
    • FYI, body movement minimized by placing participant in a non-wheeled straight backed chair
head stabilization1
Head Stabilization
  • Participant rests forehead against headrest (padded dowel)
  • Side and rear padded dowels adjusted to press lightly on the head
  • This arrangement discourages head movement, but does not keep the head held absolutely fixed
compressible acoustically transparent standoff cats
Compressible acoustically transparent standoff (CATS)
  • Probe held by clamp on a cross-bar within the same apparatus
    • Raised to fit snugly under the chin
    • CATS between probe and chin allows jaw movement without disturbing the image
    • Currently, CATS held on by rubber bands
    • Unfortunately, CATS does provide some resistance to jaw movement
slide11
CATS
  • CATS is a gel computer wrist rest
    • Trial and error to find a good wrist rest for this purpose
    • Recommend something that comes inside a cloth sleeve
    • Some rests within a non-transparent plastic sleeve have a more gelatinous interior and do not hold shape without the sleeve (yuck!)
    • Watch for air bubbles
other info from our lab
Other Info from Our Lab
  • Using Aloka SSD-1000
  • Record directly to computer with Canopus ADVC-1394
  • Have a computer with two 17” screens for data analysis (not pictured)
  • Second hard drive and DVD writer for storage and archiving
measurement
Measurement
  • View video with Adobe Premiere
  • All studies focusing on stops /k, g, t, d/
  • Identify closure visually with reference to the waveform in Premiere
  • Extract frame to Photoshop for measurement
reliability of measures
Reliability of Measures
  • Hardin (in progress) evaluating the reliability of hand measures of stop consonants
  • Data presented today from a reliability study of velar stop closure measures in Wodzinski (2004)
wodzinski 2004
Wodzinski (2004)
  • Presented (in part) at Ultrafest II
  • Study examined fronting of velar stops by three normal adult participants
  • Found velar stop closure location (quantified by an angle measure) correlated strongly with the frontness of the following vowel (quantified by F2)
slide17

/gev/

/gu/

reliability of measures1
Reliability of Measures
  • Raters
    • 2 female research assistants
    • Enrolled in the USF speech-language pathology master’s degree program
    • Trained in phonetics and speech science, and experienced in ultrasound measurement
reliability of measures2
Reliability of Measures
  • Procedure
    • Raters used the same computer programs and settings
    • Measurements done completely independently (nearly a year apart)
    • Raters given same criteria for measurement
reliability of measures3
Reliability of Measures
  • Criteria used by researchers to identify dorsum closure location:
    • Direction of tongue movement into and out of closure
    • Tongue flattening against hard palate at closure location
    • Brighter margin at edge of tongue surface during closure (probably because that portion of the tongue is no longer in motion)
reliability of measures4
Reliability of Measures
  • Measurement procedure
    • Closure is identified
    • The most anterior and posterior points of closure are marked
    • A midpoint is determined between the points by computer algorithm
    • The dorsal angle is derived between midpoint and the center point of the probe at the bottom of the ultrasound image
results closure frame
Results (Closure frame)
  • Raters compared for selection of video frame to measure as midpoint of velar closure
  • Analysis of difference in frame number between repeat of measure (SH) and original measure (SW)
results closure points
Results (Closure points)
  • Raters compared on position of anterior and posterior closure points
  • Word data
    • Anterior point avg 3.2 mm difference
    • Posterior point avg 6.2 mm difference
  • Nonword data
    • Anterior point avg 3.1 mm difference
    • Posterior point avg 5.2 mm difference
results dorsum angle
Results (Dorsum angle)
  • Resulting dorsum angle compared between raters
  • Significant differences between dorsum angle measures between raters
    • Word data SH < SW by 1.6º [t(119) = 10.3, p < 0.01]
    • Nonword data SH < SW by 0.7 º [t(171) = 4.1, p < 0.01]
results dorsum angle1
Results (Dorsum angle)
  • However, raters agreed in the overall pattern for how dorsum angle related to following vowel
  • Correlation between raters
    • Word data, r = 0.93
    • Nonword data, r = 0.95
results dorsum angle2
Results (Dorsum angle)
  • Qualitatively, the resulting analysis of coarticulation between vowel and velar angle is the same for both raters
summary reliability
Summary (Reliability)
  • There were quantitative differences between raters in their measures of velar closures
    • Inherently imprecise methodology?
    • Strategies of raters for identifying closure?
    • Experience with measuring ultrasound images?
  • Nonword data appeared more consistent than word data between raters… why?
summary lab tech
Summary (Lab tech)
  • The USF ultrasound lab has functional but probably not permanent solutions to the problems of head stabilization, probe stabilization, and a compressible standoff
  • Though these solutions are temporary, we have collected informative data on the articulation of stop consonants
question
Question
  • At USF, we have had to throw away about 50% of our participants because of ‘fuzzy’ tongue, or image drop out in the production of /k, g, t, d/
    • Is there a modification of apparatus that would increase # of usable participants?
    • Is there a modification of collection technique that would increase # of useable participants?