MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160887695 · doi:10.1121/10.0040621

Machine learning-based vowel classification using two ultrasonic transducers in pulse-echo mode

2025· article· en· W7160887695 on OpenAlexaff
Takumi Kanaya, Naoki Tano, 荒川 元孝, Yuu Ono, Marie Tabaru

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear discriminant analysisPattern recognition (psychology)VowelClassifier (UML)Feature extractionWaveletWavelet transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated a simpler alternative to cumbersome multisensor systems (e.g., multi-channel EMG) for articulatory gesture recognition. The method was validated in a vowel classification task analyzing pulse-echo waveforms from articulatory muscles. Pulse-echo signals for five Japanese vowels and a neutral state were acquired from two male subjects (20s). Two 5-MHz ultrasonic transducers (UTs) with a diameter of 10 mm were placed on the chin near the digastric muscle. Signals were acquired using two pulser-receivers (pulse repetition frequency: 2 kHz) and an oscilloscope (sampling frequency: 625 MHz). Five 6-s trials (2 s neutral, 2 s vowel, 2 s neutral) were conducted for each vowel. Spatial features were obtained using a discrete wavelet transform and mean absolute value, while temporal features were derived from their time differences. After feature selection, k-nearest neighbors (kNN) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifiers were trained. Performance was validated using trial-based 5-fold cross-validation. For comparison, the same experiments and analyses were conducted with UTs on both cheeks near the masseter muscles. The LDA classifier achieved higher accuracies of 94% (digastric muscle) and 83% (masseter muscle) compared to the kNN classifier with 80% and 70%, respectively. Similar results from the second subject support the method's effectiveness.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207