Perceptual formant discrimination during speech movement planning.

Evoked potential studies have shown that speech planning modulates auditory cortical responses. The phenomenon's functional relevance is unknown. We tested whether, during this time window of cortical auditory modulation, there is an effect on speakers' perceptual sensitivity for vowel formant discrimination. Participants made same/different judgments for pairs of stimuli consisting of a pre-recorded, self-produced vowel and a formant-shifted version of the same production. Stimuli were presented prior to a "go" signal for speaking, prior to passive listening, and during silent reading. The formant discrimination stimulus /uh/ was tested with a congruent productions list (words with /uh/) and an incongruent productions list (words without /uh/). Logistic curves were fitted to participants' responses, and the just-noticeable difference (JND) served as a measure of discrimination sensitivity. We found a statistically significant effect of condition (worst discrimination before speaking) without congruency effect. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that JND was significantly greater before speaking than during silent reading. Thus, formant discrimination sensitivity was reduced during speech planning regardless of the congruence between discrimination stimulus and predicted acoustic consequences of the planned speech movements. This finding may inform ongoing efforts to determine the functional relevance of the previously reported modulation of auditory processing during speech planning.

Perceptual formant discrimination during speech movement planning.

Evoked potential studies have shown that speech planning modulates auditory cortical responses. The phenomenon's functional relevance is unknown. We tested whether, during this time window of cortical auditory modulation, there is an effect on speakers' perceptual sensitivity for vowel formant discrimination. Participants made same/different judgments for pairs of stimuli consisting of a pre-recorded, self-produced vowel and a formant-shifted version of the same production. Stimuli were presented prior to a "go" signal for speaking, prior to passive listening, and during silent reading. The formant discrimination stimulus /uh/ was tested with a congruent productions list (words with /uh/) and an incongruent productions list (words without /uh/). Logistic curves were fitted to participants' responses, and the just-noticeable difference (JND) served as a measure of discrimination sensitivity. We found a statistically significant effect of condition (worst discrimination before speaking) without congruency effect. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that JND was significantly greater before speaking than during silent reading. Thus, formant discrimination sensitivity was reduced during speech planning regardless of the congruence between discrimination stimulus and predicted acoustic consequences of the planned speech movements. This finding may inform ongoing efforts to determine the functional relevance of the previously reported modulation of auditory processing during speech planning.

Individual sensorimotor adaptation characteristics are independent across orofacial speech movements and limb reaching movements.

Sensorimotor adaptation is critical for human motor control but shows considerable interindividual variability. Efforts are underway to identify factors accounting for individual differences in specific adaptation tasks. However, a fundamental question has remained unaddressed: Is an individual's capability for adaptation effector system specific or does it reflect a generalized adaptation ability? We therefore tested the same participants in analogous adaptation paradigms focusing on distinct sensorimotor systems: speaking with perturbed auditory feedback and reaching with perturbed visual feedback. Each task was completed once with the perturbation introduced gradually (ramped up over 60 trials) and, on a different day, once with the perturbation introduced suddenly. Consistent with studies of each system separately, visuomotor reach adaptation was more complete than auditory-motor speech adaptation (80% vs. 29% of the perturbation). Adaptation was not significantly correlated between the speech and reach tasks. Moreover, considered within tasks, 1) adaptation extent was correlated between the gradual and sudden conditions for reaching but not for speaking, 2) adaptation extent was correlated with additional measures of performance (e.g., trial duration, within-trial corrections) only for reaching and not for speaking, and 3) fitting individual participant adaptation profiles with exponential rather than linear functions offered a larger benefit [lower root mean square error (RMSE)] for the reach task than for the speech task. Combined, results suggest that the ability for sensorimotor adaptation relies on neural plasticity mechanisms that are effector system specific rather than generalized. This finding has important implications for ongoing efforts seeking to identify cognitive, behavioral, and neurochemical predictors of individual sensorimotor adaptation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study provides the first detailed demonstration that individual sensorimotor adaptation characteristics are independent across articulatory speech movements and limb reaching movements. Thus, individual sensorimotor learning abilities are effector system specific rather than generalized. Findings regarding one effector system do not necessarily apply to other systems, different underlying mechanisms may be involved, and implications for clinical rehabilitation or performance training also cannot be generalized.

Inter-Trial Formant Variability in Speech Production Is Actively Controlled but Does Not Affect Subsequent Adaptation to a Predictable Formant Perturbation.

Despite ample evidence that speech production is associated with extensive trial-to-trial variability, it remains unclear whether this variability represents merely unwanted system noise or an actively regulated mechanism that is fundamental for maintaining and adapting accurate speech movements. Recent work on upper limb movements suggest that inter-trial variability may be not only actively regulated based on sensory feedback, but also provide a type of workspace exploration that facilitates sensorimotor learning. We therefore investigated whether experimentally reducing or magnifying inter-trial formant variability in the real-time auditory feedback during speech production (a) leads to adjustments in formant production variability that compensate for the manipulation, (b) changes the temporal structure of formant adjustments across productions, and (c) enhances learning in a subsequent adaptation task in which a predictable formant-shift perturbation is applied to the feedback signal. Results show that subjects gradually increased formant variability in their productions when hearing auditory feedback with reduced variability, but subsequent formant-shift adaptation was not affected by either reducing or magnifying the perceived variability. Thus, findings provide evidence for speakers' active control of inter-trial formant variability based on auditory feedback from previous trials, but-at least for the current short-term experimental manipulation of feedback variability-not for a role of this variability regulation mechanism in subsequent auditory-motor learning.

Speech auditory-motor adaptation to formant-shifted feedback lacks an explicit component: Reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning.

The neural mechanisms underlying stuttering remain poorly understood. A large body of work has focused on sensorimotor integration difficulties in individuals who stutter, including recently the capacity for sensorimotor learning. Typically, sensorimotor learning is assessed with adaptation paradigms in which one or more sensory feedback modalities are experimentally perturbed in real time. Our own previous work on speech with perturbed auditory feedback revealed substantial auditory-motor learning limitations in both children and adults who stutter (AWS). It remains unknown, however, which subprocesses of sensorimotor learning are impaired. Indeed, new insights from research on upper limb motor control indicate that sensorimotor learning involves at least two distinct components: (a) an explicit component that includes intentional strategy use and presumably is driven by target error and (b) an implicit component that updates an internal model without awareness of the learner and presumably is driven by sensory prediction error. Here, we attempted to dissociate these components for speech auditory-motor learning in AWS versus adults who do not stutter (AWNS). Our formant-shift auditory-motor adaptation results replicated previous findings that such sensorimotor learning is limited in AWS. Novel findings are that neither control nor stuttering participants reported any awareness of changing their productions in response to the auditory perturbation and that neither group showed systematic drift in auditory target judgments made throughout the adaptation task. These results indicate that speech auditory-motor adaptation to formant-shifted feedback relies exclusively on implicit learning processes. Thus, limited adaptation in AWS reflects poor implicit sensorimotor learning. Speech auditory-motor adaptation to formant-shifted feedback lacks an explicit component: Reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning.

Dissociated Development of Speech and Limb Sensorimotor Learning in Stuttering: Speech Auditory-motor Learning is Impaired in Both Children and Adults Who Stutter.

Stuttering is a neurodevelopmental disorder of speech fluency. Various experimental paradigms have demonstrated that affected individuals show limitations in sensorimotor control and learning. However, controversy exists regarding two core aspects of this perspective. First, it has been claimed that sensorimotor learning limitations are detectable only in adults who stutter (after years of coping with the disorder) but not during childhood close to the onset of stuttering. Second, it remains unclear whether stuttering individuals' sensorimotor learning limitations affect only speech movements or also unrelated effector systems involved in nonspeech movements. We report data from separate experiments investigating speech auditory-motor learning (N = 60) and limb visuomotor learning (N = 84) in both children and adults who stutter versus matched nonstuttering individuals. Both children and adults who stutter showed statistically significant limitations in speech auditory-motor adaptation with formant-shifted feedback. This limitation was more profound in children than in adults and in younger children versus older children. Between-group differences in the adaptation of reach movements performed with rotated visual feedback were subtle but statistically significant for adults. In children, even the nonstuttering groups showed limited visuomotor adaptation just like their stuttering peers. We conclude that sensorimotor learning is impaired in individuals who stutter, and that the ability for speech auditory-motor learning-which was already adult-like in 3-6 year-old typically developing children-is severely compromised in young children near the onset of stuttering. Thus, motor learning limitations may play an important role in the fundamental mechanisms contributing to the onset of this speech disorder.

Exposure to Auditory Feedback Delay while Speaking Induces Perceptual Habituation but does not Mitigate the Disruptive Effect of Delay on Speech Auditory-motor Learning.

Perceiving the sensory consequences of our actions with a delay alters the interpretation of these afferent signals and impacts motor learning. For reaching movements, delayed visual feedback of hand position reduces the rate and extent of visuomotor adaptation, but substantial adaptation still occurs. Moreover, the detrimental effect of visual feedback delay on reach motor learning-selectively affecting its implicit component-can be mitigated by prior habituation to the delay. Auditory-motor learning for speech has been reported to be more sensitive to feedback delay, and it remains unknown whether habituation to auditory delay reduces its negative impact on learning. We investigated whether 30 min of exposure to auditory delay during speaking (a) affects the subjective perception of delay, and (b) mitigates its disruptive effect on speech auditory-motor learning. During a speech adaptation task with real-time perturbation of vowel spectral properties, participants heard this frequency-shifted feedback with no delay, 75 ms delay, or 115 ms delay. In the delay groups, 50% of participants had been exposed to the delay throughout a preceding 30-minute block of speaking whereas the remaining participants completed this block without delay. Although habituation minimized awareness of the delay, no improvement in adaptation to the spectral perturbation was observed. Thus, short-term habituation to auditory feedback delays is not effective in reducing the negative impact of delay on speech auditory-motor adaptation. Combined with previous findings, the strong negative effect of delay and the absence of an influence of delay awareness suggest the involvement of predominantly implicit learning mechanisms in speech.

It's About Time: Minimizing Hardware and Software Latencies in Speech Research With Real-Time Auditory Feedback.

Purpose Various aspects of speech production related to auditory-motor integration and learning have been examined through auditory feedback perturbation paradigms in which participants' acoustic speech output is experimentally altered and played back via earphones/headphones "in real time." Scientific rigor requires high precision in determining and reporting the involved hardware and software latencies. Many reports in the literature, however, are not consistent with the minimum achievable latency for a given experimental setup. Here, we focus specifically on this methodological issue associated with implementing real-time auditory feedback perturbations, and we offer concrete suggestions for increased reproducibility in this particular line of work. Method Hardware and software latencies as well as total feedback loop latency were measured for formant perturbation studies with the Audapter software. Measurements were conducted for various audio interfaces, desktop and laptop computers, and audio drivers. An approach for lowering Audapter's software latency through nondefault parameter specification was also tested. Results Oft-overlooked hardware-specific latencies were not negligible for some of the tested audio interfaces (adding up to 15 ms). Total feedback loop latencies (including both hardware and software latency) were also generally larger than claimed in the literature. Nondefault parameter values can improve Audapter's own processing latency without negative impact on formant tracking. Conclusions Audio interface selection and software parameter optimization substantially affect total feedback loop latency. Thus, the actual total latency (hardware plus software) needs to be correctly measured and described in all published reports. Future speech research with "real-time" auditory feedback perturbations should increase scientific rigor by minimizing this latency.

Limited Pre-Speech Auditory Modulation in Individuals Who Stutter: Data and Hypotheses.

Purpose We review and interpret our recent series of studies investigating motor-to-auditory influences during speech movement planning in fluent speakers and speakers who stutter. In those studies, we recorded auditory evoked potentials in response to probe tones presented immediately prior to speaking or at the equivalent time in no-speaking control conditions. As a measure of pre-speech auditory modulation (PSAM), we calculated changes in auditory evoked potential amplitude in the speaking conditions relative to the no-speaking conditions. Whereas adults who do not stutter consistently showed PSAM, this phenomenon was greatly reduced or absent in adults who stutter. The same between-group difference was observed in conditions where participants expected to hear their prerecorded speech played back without actively producing it, suggesting that the speakers who stutter use inefficient forward modeling processes rather than inefficient motor command generation processes. Compared with fluent participants, adults who stutter showed both less PSAM and less auditory-motor adaptation when producing speech while exposed to formant-shifted auditory feedback. Across individual participants, however, PSAM and auditory-motor adaptation did not correlate in the typically fluent group, and they were negatively correlated in the stuttering group. Interestingly, speaking with a consistent 100-ms delay added to the auditory feedback signal-normalized PSAM in speakers who stutter, and there no longer was a between-group difference in this condition. Conclusions Combining our own data with human and animal neurophysiological evidence from other laboratories, we interpret the overall findings as suggesting that (a) speech movement planning modulates auditory processing in a manner that may optimize its tuning characteristics for monitoring feedback during speech production and, (b) in conditions with typical auditory feedback, adults who stutter do not appropriately modulate the auditory system prior to speech onset. Lack of modulation of speakers who stutter may lead to maladaptive feedback-driven movement corrections that manifest themselves as repetitive movements or postural fixations.

Similar within-utterance loci of dysfluency in acquired neurogenic and persistent developmental stuttering.

Although the underlying neural mechanisms remain unknown for both persistent developmental stuttering (PSD) and acquired neurogenic stuttering (ANS), few studies have examined similarities/differences between these two disorders. We evaluated in both PDS (n = 35) and ANS (n = 5) phonetic, word class, word length, and word position variables that are widely believed to influence at which loci within utterances PDS speakers' stuttering is most likely to occur. For both groups, (a) word weights based on the combination of variables were greater for stuttered vs. fluent words, and (b) stuttered words were loaded more by individual variables. However, contrary to long-standing views regarding PDS, greater loading for stuttered words was not found for the position variable. Findings suggest similar loci of stuttering in adults with PDS and ANS, and, for both groups, the probability of stuttering on a given word was more influenced by motor production variables than language variables.

Adaptation in Mandarin tone production with pitch-shifted auditory feedback: Influence of tonal contrast requirements.

We investigated Mandarin speakers' control of lexical tone production with F0-perturbed auditory feedback. Subjects produced high level (T1), mid rising (T2), low dipping (T3), and high falling (T4) tones in conditions with (a) no perturbation, (b) T1 shifted down, (c) T1 shifted down and T3 shifted up, or (d) T1 shifted down and T3 shifted up but without producing other tones. Speakers and new subjects also completed a tone identification task with unaltered and F0-perturbed productions. With only T1 perturbed down, speakers adapted by raising F0 relative to no-perturbation. With simultaneous T1 down and T3 up perturbations, no T1 adaptation occurred, and T3 adaptation occurred only if T2 was also produced. Identification accuracy with stimuli representing adapted productions was comparable to baseline, but with simulated non-adapted productions it was reduced for T2 and T3. Thus, Mandarin speakers' adaptation to F0 perturbations is linguistically constrained and serves to maintain tone contrast.

Spectral Coefficient Analyses of Word-Initial Stop Consonant Productions Suggest Similar Anticipatory Coarticulation for Stuttering and Nonstuttering Adults.

A longstanding hypothesis about the sensorimotor mechanisms underlying stuttering suggests that stuttered speech dysfluencies result from a lack of coarticulation. Formant-based measures of either the stuttered or fluent speech of children and adults who stutter have generally failed to obtain compelling evidence in support of the hypothesis that these individuals differ in the timing or degree of coarticulation. Here, we used a sensitive acoustic technique-spectral coefficient analyses-that allowed us to compare stuttering and nonstuttering speakers with regard to vowel-dependent anticipatory influences as early as the onset burst of a preceding voiceless stop consonant. Eight adults who stutter and eight matched adults who do not stutter produced C1VC2 words, and the first four spectral coefficients were calculated for one analysis window centered on the burst of C1 and two subsequent windows covering the beginning of the aspiration phase. Findings confirmed that the combined use of four spectral coefficients is an effective method for detecting the anticipatory influence of a vowel on the initial burst of a preceding voiceless stop consonant. However, the observed patterns of anticipatory coarticulation showed no statistically significant differences, or trends toward such differences, between the stuttering and nonstuttering groups. Combining the present results for fluent speech in one given phonetic context with prior findings from both stuttered and fluent speech in a variety of other contexts, we conclude that there is currently no support for the hypothesis that the fluent speech of individuals who stutter is characterized by limited coarticulation.

Stuttering adults' lack of pre-speech auditory modulation normalizes when speaking with delayed auditory feedback.

Auditory modulation during speech movement planning is limited in adults who stutter (AWS), but the functional relevance of the phenomenon itself remains unknown. We investigated for AWS and adults who do not stutter (AWNS) (a) a potential relationship between pre-speech auditory modulation and auditory feedback contributions to speech motor learning and (b) the effect on pre-speech auditory modulation of real-time versus delayed auditory feedback. Experiment I used a sensorimotor adaptation paradigm to estimate auditory-motor speech learning. Using acoustic speech recordings, we quantified subjects' formant frequency adjustments across trials when continually exposed to formant-shifted auditory feedback. In Experiment II, we used electroencephalography to determine the same subjects' extent of pre-speech auditory modulation (reductions in auditory evoked potential N1 amplitude) when probe tones were delivered prior to speaking versus not speaking. To manipulate subjects' ability to monitor real-time feedback, we included speaking conditions with non-altered auditory feedback (NAF) and delayed auditory feedback (DAF). Experiment I showed that auditory-motor learning was limited for AWS versus AWNS, and the extent of learning was negatively correlated with stuttering frequency. Experiment II yielded several key findings: (a) our prior finding of limited pre-speech auditory modulation in AWS was replicated; (b) DAF caused a decrease in auditory modulation for most AWNS but an increase for most AWS; and (c) for AWS, the amount of auditory modulation when speaking with DAF was positively correlated with stuttering frequency. Lastly, AWNS showed no correlation between pre-speech auditory modulation (Experiment II) and extent of auditory-motor learning (Experiment I) whereas AWS showed a negative correlation between these measures. Thus, findings suggest that AWS show deficits in both pre-speech auditory modulation and auditory-motor learning; however, limited pre-speech modulation is not directly related to limited auditory-motor adaptation; and in AWS, DAF paradoxically tends to normalize their otherwise limited pre-speech auditory modulation.

Modulation of Auditory Responses to Speech vs. Nonspeech Stimuli during Speech Movement Planning.

Previously, we showed that the N100 amplitude in long latency auditory evoked potentials (LLAEPs) elicited by pure tone probe stimuli is modulated when the stimuli are delivered during speech movement planning as compared with no-speaking control conditions. Given that we probed the auditory system only with pure tones, it remained unknown whether the nature and magnitude of this pre-speech auditory modulation depends on the type of auditory stimulus. Thus, here, we asked whether the effect of speech movement planning on auditory processing varies depending on the type of auditory stimulus. In an experiment with nine adult subjects, we recorded LLAEPs that were elicited by either pure tones or speech syllables when these stimuli were presented prior to speech onset in a delayed-response speaking condition vs. a silent reading control condition. Results showed no statistically significant difference in pre-speech modulation of the N100 amplitude (early stages of auditory processing) for the speech stimuli as compared with the nonspeech stimuli. However, the amplitude of the P200 component (later stages of auditory processing) showed a statistically significant pre-speech modulation that was specific to the speech stimuli only. Hence, the overall results from this study indicate that, immediately prior to speech onset, modulation of the auditory system has a general effect on early processing stages but a speech-specific effect on later processing stages. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that pre-speech auditory modulation may play a role in priming the auditory system for its role in monitoring auditory feedback during speech production.

Electrophysiological evidence for a general auditory prediction deficit in adults who stutter.

We previously found that stuttering individuals do not show the typical auditory modulation observed during speech planning in nonstuttering individuals. In this follow-up study, we further elucidate this difference by investigating whether stuttering speakers' atypical auditory modulation is observed only when sensory predictions are based on movement planning or also when predictable auditory input is not a consequence of one's own actions. We recorded 10 stuttering and 10 nonstuttering adults' auditory evoked potentials in response to random probe tones delivered while anticipating either speaking aloud or hearing one's own speech played back and in a control condition without auditory input (besides probe tones). N1 amplitude of nonstuttering speakers was reduced prior to both speaking and hearing versus the control condition. Stuttering speakers, however, showed no N1 amplitude reduction in either the speaking or hearing condition as compared with control. Thus, findings suggest that stuttering speakers have general auditory prediction difficulties.

Modulation of auditory processing during speech movement planning is limited in adults who stutter.

Stuttering is associated with atypical structural and functional connectivity in sensorimotor brain areas, in particular premotor, motor, and auditory regions. It remains unknown, however, which specific mechanisms of speech planning and execution are affected by these neurological abnormalities. To investigate pre-movement sensory modulation, we recorded 12 stuttering and 12 nonstuttering adults' auditory evoked potentials in response to probe tones presented prior to speech onset in a delayed-response speaking condition vs. no-speaking control conditions (silent reading; seeing nonlinguistic symbols). Findings indicate that, during speech movement planning, the nonstuttering group showed a statistically significant modulation of auditory processing (reduced N1 amplitude) that was not observed in the stuttering group. Thus, the obtained results provide electrophysiological evidence in support of the hypothesis that stuttering is associated with deficiencies in modulating the cortical auditory system during speech movement planning. This specific sensorimotor integration deficiency may contribute to inefficient feedback monitoring and, consequently, speech dysfluencies.

Feedback delays eliminate auditory-motor learning in speech production.

Neurologically healthy individuals use sensory feedback to alter future movements by updating internal models of the effector system and environment. For example, when visual feedback about limb movements or auditory feedback about speech movements is experimentally perturbed, the planning of subsequent movements is adjusted - i.e., sensorimotor adaptation occurs. A separate line of studies has demonstrated that experimentally delaying the sensory consequences of limb movements causes the sensory input to be attributed to external sources rather than to one's own actions. Yet similar feedback delays have remarkably little effect on visuo-motor adaptation (although the rate of learning varies, the amount of adaptation is only moderately affected with delays of 100-200ms, and adaptation still occurs even with a delay as long as 5000ms). Thus, limb motor learning remains largely intact even in conditions where error assignment favors external factors. Here, we show a fundamentally different result for sensorimotor control of speech articulation: auditory-motor adaptation to formant-shifted feedback is completely eliminated with delays of 100ms or more. Thus, for speech motor learning, real-time auditory feedback is critical. This novel finding informs theoretical models of human motor control in general and speech motor control in particular, and it has direct implications for the application of motor learning principles in the habilitation and rehabilitation of individuals with various sensorimotor speech disorders.

Estimating feedforward vs. feedback control of speech production through kinematic analyses of unperturbed articulatory movements.

To estimate the contributions of feedforward vs. feedback control systems in speech articulation, we analyzed the correspondence between initial and final kinematics in unperturbed tongue and jaw movements for consonant-vowel (CV) and vowel-consonant (VC) syllables. If movement extents and endpoints are highly predictable from early kinematic information, then the movements were most likely completed without substantial online corrections (feedforward control); if the correspondence between early kinematics and final amplitude or position is low, online adjustments may have altered the planned trajectory (feedback control) (Messier and Kalaska, 1999). Five adult speakers produced CV and VC syllables with high, mid, or low vowels while movements of the tongue and jaw were tracked electromagnetically. The correspondence between the kinematic parameters peak acceleration or peak velocity and movement extent as well as between the articulators' spatial coordinates at those kinematic landmarks and movement endpoint was examined both for movements across different target distances (i.e., across vowel height) and within target distances (i.e., within vowel height). Taken together, results suggest that jaw and tongue movements for these CV and VC syllables are mostly under feedforward control but with feedback-based contributions. One type of feedback-driven compensatory adjustment appears to regulate movement duration based on variation in peak acceleration. Results from a statistical model based on multiple regression are presented to illustrate how the relative strength of these feedback contributions can be estimated.

Control and prediction components of movement planning in stuttering versus nonstuttering adults.

PURPOSE: Stuttering individuals show speech and nonspeech sensorimotor deficiencies. To perform accurate movements, the sensorimotor system needs to generate appropriate control signals and correctly predict their sensory consequences. Using a reaching task, we examined the integrity of these control and prediction components separately for movements unrelated to the speech motor system. METHOD: Nine stuttering and 9 nonstuttering adults made fast reaching movements to visual targets while sliding an object under the index finger. To quantify control, we determined initial direction error and end point error. To quantify prediction, we calculated the correlation between vertical and horizontal forces applied to the object-an index of how well vertical force (preventing slip) anticipated direction-dependent variations in horizontal force (moving the object). RESULTS: Directional and end point error were significantly larger for the stuttering group. Both groups performed similarly in scaling vertical force with horizontal force. CONCLUSIONS: The stuttering group's reduced reaching accuracy suggests limitations in generating control signals for voluntary movements, even for nonorofacial effectors. Typical scaling of vertical force with horizontal force suggests an intact ability to predict the consequences of planned control signals. Stuttering may be associated with generalized deficiencies in planning control signals rather than predicting the consequences of those signals.

Accuracy and precision of a custom camera-based system for 2-d and 3-d motion tracking during speech and nonspeech motor tasks.

PURPOSE Studying normal or disordered motor control requires accurate motion tracking of the effectors (e.g., orofacial structures). The cost of electromagnetic, optoelectronic, and ultrasound systems is prohibitive for many laboratories and limits clinical applications. For external movements (lips, jaw), video-based systems may be a viable alternative, provided that they offer high temporal resolution and submillimeter accuracy. METHOD The authors examined the accuracy and precision of 2-D and 3-D data recorded with a system that combines consumer-grade digital cameras capturing 60, 120, or 240 frames per second (fps), retro-reflective markers, commercially available computer software (APAS, Ariel Dynamics), and a custom calibration device. RESULTS Overall root-mean-square error (RMSE) across tests was 0.15 mm for static tracking and 0.26 mm for dynamic tracking, with corresponding precision (SD) values of 0.11 and 0.19 mm, respectively. The effect of frame rate varied across conditions, but, generally, accuracy was reduced at 240 fps. The effect of marker size (3- vs. 6-mm diameter) was negligible at all frame rates for both 2-D and 3-D data. CONCLUSION Motion tracking with consumer-grade digital cameras and the APAS software can achieve submillimeter accuracy at frame rates that are appropriate for kinematic analyses of lip/jaw movements for both research and clinical purposes.