GEPPETO 1 : A modeling approach to study the production of speech gestures Pascal Perrier (ICP – Grenoble) with Stéphanie Buchaillard (PhD) Matthieu Chabanas (ICP) Ma Liang (PhD), Yohan Payan (TIMC – Grenoble) 1 GEstures shaped by the Physics and by a PErceptually oriented Targets Optimization
53
Embed
GEPPETO 1 : A modeling approach to study the production of speech gestures
GEPPETO 1 : A modeling approach to study the production of speech gestures. Pascal Perrier (ICP – Grenoble) with Stéphanie Buchaillard (PhD) Matthieu Chabanas (ICP) Ma Liang (PhD), Yohan Payan (TIMC – Grenoble). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
GEPPETO1: A modeling approach to study
the production of speech gesturesPascal Perrier (ICP – Grenoble)
withStéphanie Buchaillard (PhD)
Matthieu Chabanas (ICP)Ma Liang (PhD),
Yohan Payan (TIMC – Grenoble)1 GEstures shaped by the Physics and by a
PErceptually oriented Targets Optimization
Outline• Introduction• Current hypotheses implemented
in GEPPETO• Some results obtained with a 2D
biomechanical tongue model• New issues raised by the use of 3D
biomechanical tongue model
Basic issuesin Speech Production
Research• Phonology/Phonetics Interface
– Link between discrete representations and continuous physical signals
– Nature of physical correlates of speech units
Basic issuesin Speech Production
Research• Control and Production of Speech
Gestures– Control variables– Central representations of physical
characteristics of the speech production apparatus
– Interaction Perception-Action
Basic issuesin Speech Production
Research• From Gestures to Speech Sounds
– Nature of acoustic sources– Relations between motor commands
and acoustics– Interaction between airflow and
articulatory gestures.
What is GEPPETO?• An evolutive modeling framework to
quantitatively test hypotheses about the control and the production of speech gestures.
• It includes– Hypotheses about the physical correlates of
phonological units.– Models of motor control– Physical models of the speech production
apparatus
Current Hypotheses• Phonology/Phonetic Interface
– The smallest phonological unit is the phoneme
– Phonemes are associated with target regions in the auditory domain
– Larger phonological units are associated with speech sequences for which specific constraints exist for target optimization or for motor commands sequencing
Current Hypotheses• Control of speech gestures
– Control variables: commands (EP Hypothesis, Feldman, 1966)
– No on line use of feedback going through the cortex.
– Short-delay orosensory and proprioceptive feedbacks are taken into account.
– Existence in the brain of internal representations of the speech apparatus (internal models).
Current Hypotheses• Control of speech gestures
– Internal representations do not account for the whole physical complexity of the speech production apparatus
– Kinematic characteristics are not directly controlled. They are the results of the interaction between motor control setups and physical phenomena of speech production
• Which characteristics of speech signals are specifically controlled?
Application to the generation of speech gestures with a 2 D biomechanical tongue model• Implementation of the model of
control• Inversion from desired perceptual
objectives to motor commands• Generation of gestures
2D Biomechanical Model• Finite element structure• Linear elasticity (small
• Hyperelastic material (2nd order Yeoh model) with large deformation hypothesis
Effect of gravity
[1s]
[300ms]
Dealing with gravity with the EP hypothesis
Dealing with gravity with the EP hypothesis
•Activation of GGp and MH
Increase of reflex activity
[300ms]
Dealing with gravity with the EP hypothesis
GGP activation
[300ms]
Dealing with gravity with the EP hypothesis
Example of a good choice of control parameters
Conclusions• A model of control based on perceptual
objectives specified in terms of formants target regions associated with motor commands and on an optimization process using a static model of the motor-perception relations can generate realistic speech movements if it is applying to a realistic physical model of speech production.
Conclusions• It supports our hypothesis that
there is not need to assume the existence of a central optimization process that would apply to the articulatory trajectories in their whole (i.e. minimum of jerk, minimum of torque…)
Conclusions• It gives an interesting account of
coarticulation phenomena by separating the effects of planning and those of physics.
• It permits to test hypotheses about the phonological units (see serial model versus Öhman’s model).
ConclusionsHowever• a systematic comparison with data
is required (currently in progress for French, German, Chinese, Japanese)
• No account for time control, or for hypo/hyperspeech
• No account for gravity
Conclusions• Necessity to work on a more
complex internal representations that would integrate some aspects of articulatory dynamics.