PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research0 citations

The Effects of Electromagnetic Articulography Sensors on Speech in Individuals With and Without Parkinson's Disease

View Full Paper
ATAustin ThompsonMHMicah E. HirschYKYunjung Kim

Key Points

  • The study aims to assess the impact of electromagnetic articulography sensors on speech outcomes in individuals with and without Parkinson's disease.
  • Analyzed speech samples from 34 speakers, including 21 controls and 13 individuals with Parkinson's disease (PwPD).
  • Speakers read a specific passage at three different time points: before wearing sensors, while wearing sensors, and after sensor removal.
  • Evaluated changes in acoustic and perceptual measures such as articulation rate, vowel space, intelligibility, and naturalness.
  • EMA sensors reduced speech intelligibility and naturalness, significantly impacting individuals with Parkinson's disease.
  • Control speakers showed a faster articulation rate while using sensors, unlike PwPD who faced greater reductions in intelligibility.
  • After removing sensors, controls spoke faster, while PwPD exhibited increased vowel space and perceived naturalness.

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined how wearing electromagnetic articulography (EMA) sensors affects acoustic and perceptual speech outcomes in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with dysarthria and neurologically healthy control speakers. Additionally, the study explored potential after-effects on acoustic and perceptual measures following approximately 45 min of wearing EMA sensors in both groups. Finally, we investigated whether wearing EMA sensors or after-sensor effects differentially impacted the two groups. Method: Thirty-four speakers (21 controls and 13 PwPD) read “The Caterpillar” passage at three time points: (a) before sensors, (b) with sensors, and (c) after sensors. We analyzed changes in acoustic (articulation rate, articulatory–acoustic vowel space AAVS, first and second spectral moment coefficients for fricatives) and perceptual (speech intelligibility, naturalness) measures across two key contrasts: sensor effects (With Sensors − Before Sensors) and after-sensor effects (After Sensors − Before Sensors). Results: Bayesian linear mixed-effects models showed sensor effects (With Sensors − Before Sensors), with EMA sensors reducing intelligibility and naturalness and altering fricative spectral moments in both groups. Additionally, control speakers exhibited a faster articulation rate with sensors. Notably, PwPD were more negatively impacted by sensor effects in terms of intelligibility ratings. After-sensor effects (After Sensors − Before Sensors) were also observed: Control speakers spoke faster following sensor removal, while PwPD demonstrated increased AAVS and were perceived as more natural. However, there was no compelling evidence that after-sensor effects differed between groups. Conclusions: EMA sensors primarily impact sibilant fricative production and perceptions of intelligibility and naturalness in PwPD and control speakers. PwPD experience greater sensor-related reductions in intelligibility, which should be carefully considered when using speech data collected with EMA to assess perceptual measures in clinical populations. Finally, PwPD exhibited increased naturalness and greater spectral distinctiveness following sensor removal, which we speculate may stem from increased passage familiarity and reduced cognitive demand. Supplemental Material and Open Science Form: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.31052272

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Thompson et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980fcb6c1c9540dea80e8f9https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_jslhr-25-00263
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper