| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,100,000)
Fiscal Year 1998: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 1997: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 1996: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In this study, orofacial movements during speech and the accuracy of the system were analyzed
Methods : Retro-reflective markers, which were recorded as reflective points with clear outlines when illuminated with infrared strobe lights, were used to provide trajectory data at following reference points : the modiolus (Mo), menton (Me), vermilion border of lower lip (LL) ; and incisal point (IP). Photogrammetric measurement during pronunciation of each tested consonant were anallyzed with a 3 analyzer (Movias 3D, nac ) with reference to following parameters : the total length of the trajectory from start to finish (TL), distance between start and finish of the trajectory (SL), TL to SL ratio (TIS), volume of the rectangular solid encompassing the entire trajectory (Cub), and mean of the 3D angles created by differences in the direction of the preceding and subsequent trajectories for each measured time (TH). The facial markers of each subject were located and automatically tracked during pronunciation with the use of six video cameras to provide six different perspectives, and the video data were collected with a datastation (Vicon 370, Oxford Metorics ). In addition, marker frames on which 3 markers were arranged spatially were attached on the slider of the calipers to provide a measured value of virtual points that were indicated by a stick on which 2 markers were aligned (pointers). Measurements of virtual points1 which were calculated from displacement of the marker frame attached on the slider, were composed with the video data of the markers.
Results : High linearity was observed both in markers and virtual points during displacement of the slider. Error that was calculated from discrepancy between measurements on the calipers and the Vicon were 0.11% (marker points) and 0.35% (virtual points) respectively. However there was no significant difference in errorbetween marker points and virtual points.
|
