1 / 48

An ultrasound study of the trough effect in VhV sequences

Ultrafest III, Arizona 16 April 2005. An ultrasound study of the trough effect in VhV sequences. Natalia Zharkova Queen Margaret University College, Speech and Hearing Sciences nzharkova@qmuc.ac.uk. Triggered by:.

boone
Download Presentation

An ultrasound study of the trough effect in VhV sequences

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ultrafest III, Arizona 16 April 2005 An ultrasound study of the trough effect in VhV sequences Natalia Zharkova Queen Margaret University College, Speech and Hearing Sciences nzharkova@qmuc.ac.uk

  2. Triggered by: • 1. Recent research on troughs in VCV sequences like /aba/ • 2. What we know about /h/:

  3. /h/ • /h/ is unspecified for tongue position (e.g. Keating 1988, Pierrehumbert & Talkin 1992, Ladefoged 2001, Karbownicki 2004) • /h/ is also unspecified for lip and jaw position… •  /h/ has a lot of freedom for coarticulation

  4. Troughs • A “trough”, or a lowering of the tongue, has been found in bilabial consonants surrounded by identical vowels (e.g. Houde 1967,Gay 1974, Gay & Ushijima 1974,Bell-Berti & Harris 1974,Engstrand 1988,Svirsky et al. 1997, Lindblom et al. 2002, Fuchs et al. 2004, Vazquez Alvarez, Hewlett & Zharkova 2004) • Bilabial consonants, like /h/, are considered unspecified for a particular tongue position

  5. So: interesting to see what happens when /h/, which is even more unspecified than bilabials, is between two identical vowels

  6. Questions: • What would be the pattern of tongue behaviour during VhVs? Specifically: • Does the tongue maintain the same position throughout the VhV sequence? • If not – what differences occur? • E.g. is there a trough on /h/? Is the V1 position different from the V2 position?

  7. Data collection • QMUC ultrasound system • three native British English speakers • data = /ihi/, /uhu/, /aha/ • carrier phrase “I said … too” (“eehee”, “oohoo”, “aha”) • sixteen times each

  8. /aha/

  9. /ihi/

  10. /uhu/

  11. Analysis • Creating three annotations: mid /h/, V1, V2 mid V1 mid /h/ same distance /h/ - V2

  12. Analysis • Creating three splines – V1, /h/, V2:

  13. Analysis • splines superimposed on each other:

  14. Typical tongue contours during /uhu/ mid V1 mid C mid V2

  15. Analysis • 1. Comparing occurrence of different tongue shape patterns

  16. Distances along vertical measure bar:V1 – C C – V2 • 2. Measuring tongue movements throughout VhVs V1 V2 /h/

  17. 3. Comparing whole contour shapes • extracting xy spline coordinates from US analysis software • importing xy values into Matlab

  18. Typical tongue shape pattern during /uhu/ Black solid line –V1 Red solid line – /h/ Blue dashed line –V2

  19. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves • Calculating the distance from each point on the C curve to its nearest neighbour on the V1 curve and separately on the V2 curve • Plotting these distances

  20. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves Black solid line –V1 Red solid line – /h/ Blue dashed line –V2

  21. Results 1. Comparing occurrence of different tongue shape patterns • Trough (highest point of C below both VV) • Antitrough (highest point of C above both VV) • Neutral (highest point of C between two VV)

  22. Tongue shape patterns distribution by vowel

  23. Results • 2. Distances of tongue movement throughout VhVs

  24. Distances of tongue movement Very small distances !!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. Significant differences in tongue displacement sizes – /a/ vs /i/, /a/ vs /u/ no significant differences in tongue displacementsizes – /i/ vs /u/

  26. Results • 3. Comparison of whole contour shapes tongue contours, by vowel…

  27. Average tongue shape pattern during /ihi/ Average tongue shape pattern during /ihi/ Black solid line – V1 Red solid line – /h/ Blue dashed line –V2

  28. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves, /ihi/ Middle part of the tongue typically lowers during the consonant !“Trough”! V1 /h/ V2

  29. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves, /ihi/ Back part of the tongue on average moves slightly backwards during the consonant !Relaxation of Advanced Tongue Root! V1 /h/ V2

  30. Average tongue shape pattern during /uhu/ Average tongue shape pattern during /uhu/ Black solid line –V1 Red solid line – /h/ Blue dashed line –V2

  31. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves, /uhu/ Middle part of the tongue typically lowers during the consonant !“Trough”! V1 /h/ V2

  32. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves, /uhu/ Tongue typically goes backwards from V1 into C, and forwards again for V2 !Relaxation of Advanced Tongue Root! V1 /h/ V2

  33. Average tongue shape pattern during /aha/ Average tongue shape pattern during /aha/ Black solid line – V1 Red solid line – /h/ Blue dashed line –V2

  34. /aha/ /aha/ /aha/ • One obvious and rather consistent pattern: /aha/ /aha/ /aha/ /aha/

  35. Distances between V1, C and V2 curves, /aha/ Front part of the tongue is on average lower for V2 than for V1 !Second syllablestressed! V1 /h/ V2

  36. /aha/ /aha/ /aha/ /aha/ • fewer number of troughs and their significantly smaller size in /a/ than in the other two vowels possible explanation: for the open vowel /a/ raising, rather than lowering, would be expected during tongue deactivation (Lindblom et al. 2002, Vazquez Alvarez, Hewlett & Zharkova 2004) /aha/ /aha/ /aha/

  37. V1 /h/ V2 Distances between V1, C and V2 curves ihi uhu aha

  38. V1 /h/ V2 Distances between V1, C and V2 curves ihi uhu aha

  39. V1 /h/ V2 Distances between V1, C and V2 curves ihi uhu aha

  40. Differences between V1 and V2 • On average V1 is further away from C than V2, suggesting a syllable boundary influence and showing asymmetrical nature of VCV: ihiuhuaha V1-C: 0,539 0,5820,362 V2-C: 0,3870,5190,310

  41. Conclusions • Tongue is in a very similar position for both vowels and /h/ • However, there is some evidence that /h/ is more like V2 than like V1: a syllable boundary effect

  42. Conclusions • Some evidence for troughs, but they are small • More troughs in /i/ and /u/ contexts than in /a/ context • Troughs/antitroughs mainly occur in mid and back parts of the tongue • Front of the tongue – continuous movement from V1 to V2

  43. Implications for the future • Why these patterns? • May be some properties of /h/ • May be due to syllable boundary within the VhV sequence • May be due to stress position and its physical characteristics … Future research…..

  44. REFERENCES Bell-Berti, F. & Harris, K.S. (1974). More on the motor organization of speech gestures. Haskins Labs. Status Rep. Speech Res., SR-37/38, pp. 73-77. Engstrand, O. (1988). Articulatory correlates of stress and speaking rate in Swedish VCV utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, pp. 1863-1875. Fuchs, S., Hoole, P., Brunner, J. & Inoue, M. (2004). The trough effect – an aerodynamic phenomenon? [Oral presentation, “From Sound to Sense”, 11-13 June 2004, MIT.] Gay, T. (1974). Some electromyographic measures of coarticulation in VCV utterances. Haskins Labs. Status Rep. Speech Res., SR-44, pp. 137-145. Gay, T. & Ushijima, T. (1974). Effect of speaking rate on stop consonant-vowel articulation. Speech Commun. Semin., Stockh., SCS-74, pp. 205-208. Houde, R.A. (1967). A study of tongue motion during selected speech sounds. PhD diss. Speech Commun. Res. Lab., Santa Barbara, Monogr. No. 2. Karbownicki, L. (2004).Investigation of the coarticulation effects on [h] when preceding a vowel. BSc, Honours project, Queen Margaret University College. Keating, P.A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5.2, pp. 275-292.

  45. REFERENCES Kozhevnikov, V.A. & Chistovich, L.A. (1965). Rech: Artikulyatsiya i vospriyatiye (Speech: Articulation and perception). Moscow-Leningrad. Translation: Kozhevnikov, V.A. & Chistovich, L.A. (1965). Speech: Articulation and perception, No. 30, p. 543 (Joint Pub. Res. Service, Washington). Ladefoged, P. (2001). A Course in Phonetics. 4th edn. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers. Lindblom, B., Sussman, H.M., Modaressi, G. & Burlingame, E. (2002). The trough effect: Implications for speech motor programming. Phonetica, 59, pp. 245-262. Perkell, J. (1986). Coarticulation strategies: preliminary implications of a detailed analysis of lower lip protrusion movements. Speech Communication, 5, pp. 47-68. Pierrehumbert, J. & Talkin, D. (1992). Lenition of [h] and glottal stop. In J. Docherty & D.R. Ladd (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 90-117. Svirsky, M., Stevens, K., Matthies, M., Manzella, J., Perkell, J. & Wilhelms-Tricarico, R. (1997). Tongue surface displacement during bilabial stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, pp. 562-571. Vazquez Alvarez, Y., Hewlett, N., & Zharkova, N. (2004). An ultrasound study of the "Trough Effect". [Poster at the British Association of Academic Phoneticians Colloquium 2004, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.]

More Related