Complex patterns in silent speech preparation: Preparing for fast response might be different to preparing for fast speech in a reaction time experiment
Date
2015-08-15
Authors
Schaeffler, Sonja
Scobbie, James M.
Schaeffler, Felix
Citation
Schaeffler, S., Scobbie, J. M. & Schaeffler, F. (2015) Complex patterns in silent speech preparation:
Preparing for fast response might be different to
preparing for fast speech in a reaction time experiment. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Glasgow, 10-14 August 2015, [Paper no: 866].
Abstract
This paper presents articulatory data on silent
preparation in a standard Verbal Reaction Time
experiment. We have reported in a previous study
[6] that Reaction Time is reliably detectable in
Ultrasound Tongue Imaging and lip video data, and
between 120 to 180 ms ahead of the standard
acoustics-based measurements. The aim of the
current study was to investigate in more detail how
silent speech preparation is timed in relation to faster
and slower Reaction Times, and faster and slower
articulation rates of the verbal response. The results
suggest that the standard acoustic-based
measurements of Reaction Time may not only
routinely underestimate fastness of response but also
obscure considerable variation in actual response
behaviour. Particularly tokens with fast Reaction
Times seem to exhibit substantial variation with
respect to when the response is actually initiated, i.e.
detectable in the articulatory data.
The use of orthotics in the management of rheumatoid arthritis appears to be relatively commonplace within occupational therapy departments. The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of orthotic use by occupational therapists, their beliefs about the efficacy of orthotic use, what they aimed to achieve by orthotic provision and any outcome measures used. The total membership of the British Association of Hand Therapists who were both occupational therapists and self-identified as working and/or having an interest in rheumatology (n = 132) were surveyed through a postal questionnaire. Of the responses received (n = 89, 67%), all the respondents (100%) were regular users of orthotics in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. The results showed that the most highly rated reasons for orthotic provision were to decrease hand and wrist pain and to improve hand function. Subjective comments from the respondents provided evidence of positive beliefs about the efficacy of orthotic use, despite a lack of objective outcome measures to support such comment. Given the complexity of the intervening variables that occur with orthotic use, perhaps there is no easy answer; however, with the expectation of evidence-based practice and intervention, it is suggested that an increased use of standardised outcome measures may provide additional strength in presenting, often subjective, evidence.
The use of orthotics in the management of rheumatoid arthritis appears to be relatively commonplace within occupational therapy departments. The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of orthotic use by occupational therapists, their beliefs about the efficacy of orthotic use, what they aimed to achieve by orthotic provision and any outcome measures used. The total membership of the British Association of Hand Therapists who were both occupational therapists and self-identified as working and/or having an interest in rheumatology (n = 132) were surveyed through a postal questionnaire. Of the responses received (n = 89, 67%), all the respondents (100%) were regular users of orthotics in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. The results showed that the most highly rated reasons for orthotic provision were to decrease hand and wrist pain and to improve hand function. Subjective comments from the respondents provided evidence of positive beliefs about the efficacy of orthotic use, despite a lack of objective outcome measures to support such comment. Given the complexity of the intervening variables that occur with orthotic use, perhaps there is no easy answer; however, with the expectation of evidence-based practice and intervention, it is suggested that an increased use of standardised outcome measures may provide additional strength in presenting, often subjective, evidence.