Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Collection of speech production ultrasound data Donald Derrick 12, Romain Fiasson 2 and Catherine T. Best 1 1 University of Western Sydney (MARCS Institute)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Collection of speech production ultrasound data Donald Derrick 12, Romain Fiasson 2 and Catherine T. Best 1 1 University of Western Sydney (MARCS Institute)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Collection of speech production ultrasound data Donald Derrick 12, Romain Fiasson 2 and Catherine T. Best 1 1 University of Western Sydney (MARCS Institute) 2 University of Canterbury (NZILBB)

2 Introduction Ultrasound Imaging – Uses high frequency sound waves to image density changes in soft tissue Ideal for imaging the surface of the tongue But cannot penetrate air or bone boundaries – Can miss the tongue tip and/or root – Palate trace difficult – No pharyngeal wall recording – Provides noisy medical-grade images Intended for diagnosis Often difficult to measure directly 3

3 Ultrasound can miss tongue tip/root Pick the right probe and placement – Narrow – Curved-array – Away from bone Forward of notch for root Adjacent to notch for tongue tip 4 Ultrasound - edges Derrick and Fiasson (In Prep)

4 Ultrasound – frame rate Ultrasound frame rate factor of: – Ultrasound CPU – Image smoothing – Image lines – Image angle Combined with video capture methods – Trade portability, A/V sync, fps 5

5 Ultrasound speed – Video capture SD 24/30 fps interlaced HD 48/60 fps interlaced A/V sync – Cineloop full speed Short duration (8-16 second) External A/V sync only – Frame grabber 60 fps progressive Drops frames A/V not synced – Semi-raw capture best No longer supported by anyone – B/M Progressive scan Full speed m-mode, 1D lines 6 Ultrasound – video capture Gick, Wilson, and Derrick (2013)

6 Ultrasound speed – Video capture SD 24/30 fps interlaced HD 48/60 fps interlaced A/V sync – Cineloop full speed Short duration (8-16 second) External A/V sync only – Frame grabber 60 fps progressive Drops frames A/V not synced – Semi-raw capture best No longer supported by anyone – B/M Progressive scan Full speed m-mode, 1D lines 7 Ultrasound – video capture Miller and Finch (2011)

7 Ultrasound speed – Video capture SD 24/30 fps interlaced HD 48/60 fps interlaced A/V sync – Cineloop full speed Short duration (8-16 second) External A/V sync only – Frame grabber 60 fps progressive Drops frames A/V not synced – Semi-raw capture best No longer supported by anyone – B/M Progressive scan Full speed m-mode, 1D lines 8 Ultrasound – video capture Derrick and Fiasson (In Prep)

8 Ultrasound speed – Video capture SD 24/30 fps interlaced HD 48/60 fps interlaced A/V sync – Cineloop full speed Short duration (8-16 second) External A/V sync only – Frame grabber 60 fps progressive Drops frames A/V not synced – Semi-raw capture best No longer supported by anyone – B/M Progressive scan Full speed m-mode, 1D lines 9 Ultrasound – video capture QuickTime, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premier – Don’t work with all frame grabbers – Interfere with frame rate/quality Oh g-d, the pain, the PAIN! FFMPEG – FPS With SSD, 64 bit computer, and x264 – Requires UNIX command-line skills – Post-processing synchronization based on transient bursts (‘tatata’)

9 Ultrasound speed – Video capture SD 24/30 fps interlaced HD 48/60 fps interlaced A/V sync – Cineloop full speed Short duration (8-16 second) External A/V sync only – Frame grabber 60 fps progressive Drops frames A/V not synced – Semi-raw capture (best) Only EchoB supports now – B/M Progressive scan Full speed m-mode, 1D lines 10 Ultrasound – video capture sound-products/

10 Ultrasound speed – Video capture SD 24/30 fps interlaced HD 48/60 fps interlaced A/V sync – Cineloop full speed Short duration (8-16 second) External A/V sync only – Frame grabber 60 fps progressive Drops frames A/V not synced – Semi-raw capture best No longer supported by anyone – B/M Progressive scan Full speed m-mode, 1D lines 11 Ultrasound – video capture Gick, Wilson, and Derrick (2013)

11 Hand-held – Easy – Useful in field/with children Head rest – Reduces motion to μ 1mm – Moves with jaw Metal head mounting – Effective – Negates jaw motion Non-metal mounting – Effective – Moves with jaw 12 Ultrasound – head stabilization Stone (2005)

12 Hand-held – Easy – Useful in field/with children Head rest – Reduces motion to μ 1mm – Moves with jaw Metal head mounting – Effective – Negates jaw motion Non-metal mounting – Effective – Moves with jaw 13 Ultrasound – head stabilization Gick (2002) Gick, Bird, and Wilson (2005)

13 Hand-held – Easy – Useful in field/with children Head rest – Reduces motion to μ 1mm – Moves with jaw Metal head mounting – Effective – Negates jaw motion Non-metal mounting – Effective – Moves with jaw 14 Ultrasound – head stabilization /ultrasound-products/

14 Hand-held – Easy – Useful in field/with children Head rest – Reduces motion to μ 1mm – Moves with jaw Metal head mounting – Effective – Negates jaw motion Non-metal mounting – Effective – Moves with jaw 15 Ultrasound – head stabilization Derrick and Fiasson (In Prep)

15 Diagnostic – Easier, less data storage – Must be defined carefully Direct measurement – Slow, tedious – More rich/useful 16 Ultrasound - Measurements Derrick and Gick (2012)

16 Diagnostic – Easier, less data storage – Must be defined carefully Direct measurement – Slow, tedious – More rich/useful Ultrasound - Measurements Tiede’s “GetContours”

17 Discussion Ultrasound provides tongue shape and dynamic information – Can do so at high temporal and spatial resolution Head stabilization has tradeoffs – Free jaw motion invalidates palate measurements – Restrained jaw motion restricts speech unnaturally Ultrasound can be used for diagnostic or direct- measurement analysis – Diagnostic is fast but uses little of the data – Direct-measurement is slow but uses more data 18

18 References Derrick, D. and Fiasson, R. (In Prep). Co-collection and co-registration of speech production ultrasound and articulometry data. Derrick, D. and Gick, B. (2012). Speech rate influences categorical variation of English flaps and taps during normal speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 131(4):3345. Gick, B., Wilson, I. and Derrick, D. (2013). Articulatory Phonetics. Wiley-Blackwell. Gick, B., Bird, S., and Wilson, I. (2005). Techniques for field application of lingual ultrasound imaging. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. 19(6/7):

19 References Gick, B. (2002). The use of ultrasound for linguistic phonetic fieldwork. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 32(2): Miller, A. and Finch, K. (2011). Corrected High-Frame Rate Anchored Ultrasound With Software Alignment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 54: Stone, M. (2005). A Guide to Analysing Tongue Motion from Ultrasound Images. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. 19(6/7): Tiede. M. (2010). {MVIEW: Multi-channel visualization application for displaying dynamic sensor movements. Development 20

20 References Tiede, M. (2005). MVIEW: software for visulalizing and analysis of concurrently recorded movement data. 21


Download ppt "Collection of speech production ultrasound data Donald Derrick 12, Romain Fiasson 2 and Catherine T. Best 1 1 University of Western Sydney (MARCS Institute)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google