MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887067760 · doi:10.1109/civemsa.2018.8440000

Guided Learning of Pronunciation by Visualizing Tongue Articulation in Ultrasound Image Sequences

2018· article· en· W2887067760 on OpenAlexaff
M. Hamed Mozaffari, Shenyong Guan, Shuangyue Wen, Nan Wang, Won‐Sook Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePronunciationArtificial intelligenceArticulation (sociology)TongueComputer visionVisualizationSpeech recognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound has been used as one of the primary technologies utilized widely for clinical diagnosis due to its affordability, non-invasive characteristic, portability, and its fast performance in acquisition. Recently, it started to be used as a visual feedback method for tongue articulation, thanks to its capacity of real-time visualization and video capture of underlying structures inside the mouth. When an Ultrasound transducer is placed along the mid-line under a chin, it shows the tongue motion in sagittal view while speaking. As it is still quite difficult to understand the structure in ultrasound images, we proposed a guided learning system for pronunciation by visualizing tongue articulation in Ultrasound image sequences. Video image registration technique has been employed to project sagittal section of tongue back to the corresponding position on the subject head. The proposed system targets speech therapy and foreign language pronunciation lessons. Two main technology components are (i) Ultrasound tongue image segmentation and tracking (ii) registration of Ultrasound image sequences on video of a subject during the speech. Our experiments on Chinese English learners revealed that the proposed system is capable of providing the beneficial improvement on English pronunciation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207