Vowel category dependence of the relationship between palate height, tongue height, and oral area.

This article evaluates intertalker variance of oral area, logarithm of the oral area, tongue height, and formant frequencies as a function of vowel category. The data consist of coronal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences and acoustic recordings of 5 talkers, each producing 11 different vowels. Tongue height (left, right, and midsagittal), palate height, and oral area were measured in 3 coronal sections anterior to the oropharyngeal bend and were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance, variance ratio analysis, and regression analysis. The primary finding of this article is that oral area (between palate and tongue) showed less intertalker variance during production of vowels with an oral place of articulation (palatal and velar vowels) than during production of vowels with a uvular or pharyngeal place of articulation. Although oral area variance is place dependent, percentage variance (log area variance) is not place dependent. Midsagittal tongue height in the molar region was positively correlated with palate height during production of palatal vowels, but not during production of nonpalatal vowels. Taken together, these results suggest that small oral areas are characterized by relatively talker-independent vowel targets and that meeting these talker-independent targets is important enough that each talker adjusts his or her own tongue height to compensate for talker-dependent differences in constriction anatomy. Computer simulation results are presented to demonstrate that these results may be explained by an acoustic control strategy: When talkers with very different anatomical characteristics try to match talker-independent formant targets, the resulting area variances are minimized near the primary vocal tract constriction.

[1]  Robert Hagiwara,et al.  DIALECT VARIATION AND FORMANT FREQUENCY : THE AMERICAN ENGLISH VOWELS REVISITED , 1997 .

[2]  Coarticulation • Suprasegmentals,et al.  Acoustic Phonetics , 2019, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Human Communication Sciences and Disorders.

[3]  P. W. Nye,et al.  Analysis of vocal tract shape and dimensions using magnetic resonance imaging: vowels. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  R. J. Lickley,et al.  Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. , 1992 .

[5]  J. Perkell,et al.  Variability in production of the vowels /i/ and /a/. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Vocal tract area functions from magnetic resonance imaging. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  サイバネットシステム,et al.  MATLAB : high-performance numeric computation and visualization software : エクスターナルインタフェースガイド , 1994 .

[8]  H. K. Dunn The Calculation of Vowel Resonances, and an Electrical Vocal Tract , 1950 .

[9]  S. Wood A radiographic analysis of constriction locations for vowels , 1979 .

[10]  Khalil Roushdy Iskarous Dynamic Acoustic -Articulatory Relations , 2001 .

[11]  Joseph S. Perkell,et al.  An indirect test of the quantal nature of speech in the production of the vowels /i/, /a/ and /u/ , 1989 .

[12]  Olov Engwall Are Static MRI Data Representative of Dynamic Speech? : Results from a Comparative Study Using MRI, EMA, and EPG , 2000 .

[13]  J. Perkell Properties of the tongue help to define vowel categories: hypotheses based on physiologically-oriented modeling , 1996 .

[14]  Abeer Alwan,et al.  New results in vowel production: MRI, EPG, and acoustic data , 1997, EUROSPEECH.

[15]  D. Talkin Speech formant trajectory estimation using dynamic programming with modulated transition costs , 1987 .

[16]  K. Stevens,et al.  Development of a Quantitative Description of Vowel Articulation , 1955 .

[17]  P. Ladefoged,et al.  Factor analysis of tongue shapes. , 1971, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  M. Hasegawa-Johnson,et al.  CTMRedit: a Matlab-based tool for segmenting and interpolating MRI and CT images in three orthogonal planes , 1999, Proceedings of the First Joint BMES/EMBS Conference. 1999 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 21st Annual Conference and the 1999 Annual Fall Meeting of the Biomedical Engineering Society (Cat. N.

[19]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Olov Engwall,et al.  Are static MRI measurements representative of dynamic speech? results from a comparative study using MRI, EPG and EMA , 2000, Interspeech.

[21]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis , 1983 .

[22]  T. Chiba The vowel, its nature and structure , 1958 .