Are Articulatory Settings Mechanically Advantageous for Speech Motor Control?

We address the hypothesis that postures adopted during grammatical pauses in speech production are more “mechanically advantageous” than absolute rest positions for facilitating efficient postural motor control of vocal tract articulators. We quantify vocal tract posture corresponding to inter-speech pauses, absolute rest intervals as well as vowel and consonant intervals using automated analysis of video captured with real-time magnetic resonance imaging during production of read and spontaneous speech by 5 healthy speakers of American English. We then use locally-weighted linear regression to estimate the articulatory forward map from low-level articulator variables to high-level task/goal variables for these postures. We quantify the overall magnitude of the first derivative of the forward map as a measure of mechanical advantage. We find that postures assumed during grammatical pauses in speech as well as speech-ready postures are significantly more mechanically advantageous than postures assumed during absolute rest. Further, these postures represent empirical extremes of mechanical advantage, between which lie the postures assumed during various vowels and consonants. Relative mechanical advantage of different postures might be an important physical constraint influencing planning and control of speech production.

[1]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Dynamics and articulatory phonology , 1996 .

[2]  J. Esling,et al.  Voice Quality Settings and the Teaching of Pronunciation. , 1983 .

[3]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Formal Engineering Design Synthesis , 2005 .

[4]  T. Gelder,et al.  Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition , 1995 .

[5]  L Saltzman Elliot,et al.  A Dynamical Approach to Gestural Patterning in Speech Production , 1989 .

[6]  Karsten Koch,et al.  Language-Specific Articulatory Settings: Evidence from Inter-Utterance Rest Position , 2004, Phonetica.

[7]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  Statistical methods for estimation of direct and differential kinematics of the vocal tract , 2013, Speech Commun..

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

[9]  J. Laver The phonetic description of voice quality , 1980 .

[10]  William J. Turkel,et al.  Children’s and Adults’ Understanding of Proper Namable Things , 2004 .

[11]  Bryan Gick,et al.  Articulatory settings of French and English monolinguals and bilinguals , 2006 .

[12]  Henry Sweet A Primer of Phonetics , 2009 .

[13]  Alan A Wrench,et al.  A MULTI-CHANNEL/MULTI-SPEAKER ARTICULATORY DATABASE FOR CONTINUOUS SPEECH RECOGNITION RESEARCH , 2000 .

[14]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  An investigation of articulatory setting using real-time magnetic resonance imaging. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Posture-based motion planning: applications to grasping. , 2001, Psychological review.

[16]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Springer Handbook of Robotics , 2007, Springer Handbooks.

[17]  Shrikanth Narayanan,et al.  An approach to real-time magnetic resonance imaging for speech production. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Felix Schaeffler,et al.  Measuring language-specific phonetic settings , 2010 .

[19]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Analysis of pausing behavior in spontaneous speech using real-time magnetic resonance imaging of articulation. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  John Laver The Concept of Articulatory Settings: An Historical Survey , 1978 .

[21]  Frank H. Guenther,et al.  Speech motor control: Acoustic goals, saturation effects, auditory feedback and internal models , 1997, Speech Commun..

[22]  Shrikanth Narayanan,et al.  Synchronized and noise-robust audio recordings during realtime magnetic resonance imaging scans. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.