Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.54 1295-1301 October 2011. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0226)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berry, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berry, J. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Research Note

Accuracy of the NDI Wave Speech Research System

Jeffrey J. Berrya
a Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI

Correspondence to Jeffrey J. Berry: jeffrey.berry{at}marquette.edu

Purpose: This work provides a quantitative assessment of the positional tracking accuracy of the NDI Wave Speech Research System.

Method: Three experiments were completed: (a) static rigid-body tracking across different locations in the electromagnetic field volume, (b) dynamic rigid-body tracking across different locations within the electromagnetic field volume, and (c) human jaw-movement tracking during speech. Rigid-body experiments were completed for 4 different instrumentation settings, permuting 2 electromagnetic field volume sizes with and without automated reference sensor processing.

Results: Within the anthropometrically pertinent "near field" (< 200 mm) of the NDI Wave field generator, at the 300-mm3 volume setting, 88% of dynamic positional errors were < 0.5 mm and 98% were < 1.0 mm. Extreme tracking errors (> 2 mm) occurred within the near field for < 1% of position samples. For human jaw-movement tracking, 95% of position samples had < 0.5 mm errors for 9 out of 10 subjects.

Conclusions: Static tracking accuracy is modestly superior to dynamic tracking accuracy. Dynamic tracking accuracy is best for the 300-mm3 field setting in the 200-mm near field. The use of automated head correction has no deleterious effect on tracking. Tracking errors for jaw movements during speech are typically < 0.5 mm.

KEY WORDS: NDI wave, EMA, speech kinematics


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?