Eptual Sch66336 chemical information evaluation for the three DDK tasks. control measure percept. rating syllable /pa/ /ta/ /ka/ mean COV /pa/ /ta/ /ka/ rate mean /pa/ /ta/ /ka/ mean mean 1 1 1 1 5.76 7.24 7.28 6.76 6.84 6.66 6.16 6.55 s.d. 0 0 0 0 0.78 1.82 1.28 1.29 0.61 0.49 0.59 0.56 range 0 0 0 0 2.33 4.31 3.15 3.26 1.79 1.51 1.66 1.65 ataxic dysarthria mean 3.10 3.87 4.03 3.67 6.91 10.48 8.06 8.49 3.83 3.62 3.19 3.54 s.d. 0.36 0.81 0.25 0.48 3.22 7.97 3.01 4.73 1.13 1.20 1.21 1.18 range 0.70 1.50 0.50 0.90 5.85 13.90 5.91 8.55 2.24 2.24 2.09 2.19 hypokinetic dysarthria mean 3.83 3.43 3.70 3.66 16.10 10.89 13.85 13.61 5.45 6.52 5.64 5.87 s.d. 0.29 0.12 1.28 0.56 5.35 3.20 7.30 5.28 0.36 0.87 0.68 0.64 range 0.50 0.20 2.50 1.07 9.97 5.64 13.16 9.59 0.63 1.67 1.31 1.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369:perceptually through the change in vowel quality, the methodology for the acoustic rhythm metrics prescribes that consecutive vowel or consonant intervals should be labelled as one unit, thus resulting in an excessively long vocalic period for this speaker. The resulting difference in length to the neighbouring syllable leads to the high nPVI-V result. The impact of this segmentation rule becomes apparent when it is ignored and the different vowels are separated, in which case the speaker’s nPVI-V value drops to 66, i.e. below rather than above the control mean. It should be noted that this method was not without its problems either though, as the separation of the vowel into distinct segments introduced an element of unreliability given the poor acoustic landmarks available to identify the boundaries between different vowels.(b) Task 2: syllable repetitionTable 5 summarizes the results for the analysis of the DDK tasks, indicating the 3′-Methylquercetin solubility perceptual rating, the variability measure (COV) and the rate of articulation. In addition, the means for all three syllable types are indicated, as these were pooled for the purpose of reducing the number of comparisons for the statistical analysis (this was deemed appropriate as they essentially represented the same speech task and no particular syllable stood out as eliciting specific behaviours that could not be observed in the others). Despite the elevated group means suggesting more variable behaviour in the dysarthria speakers, the results of the Kruskal allis test did not indicate any significant difference for the variability measure (COV, p ?0.101). However, the perceptual evaluation and articulation rate separated the control speakers from the dysarthric groups ( p ?0.009 for both variables, post hoc analyses showed significant results for comparisons between the control and either of the dysarthria groups ( p ?0.024)). Although the hypokinetic participants showed a considerably different mean rate to the ataxic speakers, the post hoc analysis only just confirmed this ( p ?0.05). Following the renewed mismatch between the perceptual evaluation and speech timing metric for this task, furtherqualitative evaluation of the acoustic data was performed again, paying attention to clarity of syllable production, as well as intensity and F0 variability between successive syllables. Figure 4 presents some examples of the kinds of issues this analysis highlighted. The first speaker (1) is a control participant, demonstrating relatively regular durations, intensity peaks and F0 levels, with clear separation of syllables. In comparison, speaker (2), who had ataxic dysarthria, shows a lot more variability in her F0.Eptual evaluation for the three DDK tasks. control measure percept. rating syllable /pa/ /ta/ /ka/ mean COV /pa/ /ta/ /ka/ rate mean /pa/ /ta/ /ka/ mean mean 1 1 1 1 5.76 7.24 7.28 6.76 6.84 6.66 6.16 6.55 s.d. 0 0 0 0 0.78 1.82 1.28 1.29 0.61 0.49 0.59 0.56 range 0 0 0 0 2.33 4.31 3.15 3.26 1.79 1.51 1.66 1.65 ataxic dysarthria mean 3.10 3.87 4.03 3.67 6.91 10.48 8.06 8.49 3.83 3.62 3.19 3.54 s.d. 0.36 0.81 0.25 0.48 3.22 7.97 3.01 4.73 1.13 1.20 1.21 1.18 range 0.70 1.50 0.50 0.90 5.85 13.90 5.91 8.55 2.24 2.24 2.09 2.19 hypokinetic dysarthria mean 3.83 3.43 3.70 3.66 16.10 10.89 13.85 13.61 5.45 6.52 5.64 5.87 s.d. 0.29 0.12 1.28 0.56 5.35 3.20 7.30 5.28 0.36 0.87 0.68 0.64 range 0.50 0.20 2.50 1.07 9.97 5.64 13.16 9.59 0.63 1.67 1.31 1.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369:perceptually through the change in vowel quality, the methodology for the acoustic rhythm metrics prescribes that consecutive vowel or consonant intervals should be labelled as one unit, thus resulting in an excessively long vocalic period for this speaker. The resulting difference in length to the neighbouring syllable leads to the high nPVI-V result. The impact of this segmentation rule becomes apparent when it is ignored and the different vowels are separated, in which case the speaker’s nPVI-V value drops to 66, i.e. below rather than above the control mean. It should be noted that this method was not without its problems either though, as the separation of the vowel into distinct segments introduced an element of unreliability given the poor acoustic landmarks available to identify the boundaries between different vowels.(b) Task 2: syllable repetitionTable 5 summarizes the results for the analysis of the DDK tasks, indicating the perceptual rating, the variability measure (COV) and the rate of articulation. In addition, the means for all three syllable types are indicated, as these were pooled for the purpose of reducing the number of comparisons for the statistical analysis (this was deemed appropriate as they essentially represented the same speech task and no particular syllable stood out as eliciting specific behaviours that could not be observed in the others). Despite the elevated group means suggesting more variable behaviour in the dysarthria speakers, the results of the Kruskal allis test did not indicate any significant difference for the variability measure (COV, p ?0.101). However, the perceptual evaluation and articulation rate separated the control speakers from the dysarthric groups ( p ?0.009 for both variables, post hoc analyses showed significant results for comparisons between the control and either of the dysarthria groups ( p ?0.024)). Although the hypokinetic participants showed a considerably different mean rate to the ataxic speakers, the post hoc analysis only just confirmed this ( p ?0.05). Following the renewed mismatch between the perceptual evaluation and speech timing metric for this task, furtherqualitative evaluation of the acoustic data was performed again, paying attention to clarity of syllable production, as well as intensity and F0 variability between successive syllables. Figure 4 presents some examples of the kinds of issues this analysis highlighted. The first speaker (1) is a control participant, demonstrating relatively regular durations, intensity peaks and F0 levels, with clear separation of syllables. In comparison, speaker (2), who had ataxic dysarthria, shows a lot more variability in her F0.