FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sci Rep / Gait change in tongue movement.
Scientific reports2021; 11(1); 16565; doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96139-4

Gait change in tongue movement.

Abstract: During locomotion, humans switch gaits from walking to running, and horses from walking to trotting to cantering to galloping, as they increase their movement rate. It is unknown whether gait change leading to a wider movement rate range is limited to locomotive-type behaviours, or instead is a general property of any rate-varying motor system. The tongue during speech provides a motor system that can address this gap. In controlled speech experiments, using phrases containing complex tongue-movement sequences, we demonstrate distinct gaits in tongue movement at different speech rates. As speakers widen their tongue-front displacement range, they gain access to wider speech-rate ranges. At the widest displacement ranges, speakers also produce categorically different patterns for their slowest and fastest speech. Speakers with the narrowest tongue-front displacement ranges show one stable speech-gait pattern, and speakers with widest ranges show two. Critical fluctuation analysis of tongue motion over the time-course of speech revealed these speakers used greater effort at the beginning of phrases-such end-state-comfort effects indicate speech planning. Based on these findings, we expect that categorical motion solutions may emerge in any motor system, providing that system with access to wider movement-rate ranges.
© 2021. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-08-16 PubMed ID: 34400732PubMed Central: PMC8367994DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96139-4Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article investigates whether the concept of gait change, typically associated with physical locomotion like walking or running, also applies to speech, particularly tongue movement. Findings demonstrate that speakers show different ‘gaits’ in tongue movement at varying speech rates, potentially influencing their capability to use wider speech-rate ranges.

Understanding Gait in Locomotion and Speech

  • The study begins by explaining the concept of gait change during locomotion. For example, humans change their gait from walking to running, while horses transition from walking to trotting, then cantering to galloping, as they increase their speed.
  • In contrast to previous assumptions that gait change is specific to locomotive behaviours, the researchers proposed that this might be a general attribute of any system that varies its rate, including speech.
  • The researchers focused specifically on tongue movements during speech as an example of such a motor system.

Experimentation and Findings

  • The researchers conducted controlled speech experiments involving complex sequences of tongue movements.
  • They found that speakers exhibited distinct gaits in their tongue movement at different speech rates.
  • Speakers who were able to achieve wider tongue-front displacement ranges could access wider speech-rate ranges.
  • When operating at the widest movement ranges, speakers produced different patterns for fast and slow speech. Those with a narrow range of tongue-front displacement typically showed one stable speech-gait pattern, while those with the widest ranges showed two.

Analysis of Speech Planning

  • The research team performed ‘Critical Fluctuation Analysis’ of the tongue movements over the course of the speech.
  • They discovered that these speakers exerted more effort at the beginning of phrases which was deduced by end-state-comfort effects, indicating the presence of pre-emptive speech planning.

Implications of the Study

  • The findings suggest that the categorization of motion solutions might emerge in any motor system as it provides the system with access to a wider range of movement rates. This is demonstrated in this study by how the tongue changes its movement patterns or ‘gait’ depending on the speed of speech.
  • The study therefore provides valuable insights into the mechanics of speech production, and adds depth to our understanding of motor systems beyond just physical locomotion.

Cite This Article

APA
Derrick D, Gick B. (2021). Gait change in tongue movement. Sci Rep, 11(1), 16565. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96139-4

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 1
Pages: 16565
PII: 16565

Researcher Affiliations

Derrick, Donald
  • New Zealand Institute of Language, Brain, and Behaviour, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand. donald.derrick@canterbury.ac.nz.
Gick, Bryan
  • Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
  • Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, 06511-6695, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Movement / physiology
  • Speech / physiology
  • Speech Articulation Tests / instrumentation
  • Speech Articulation Tests / methods
  • Time Factors
  • Tongue / physiology

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 57 references
  1. Aristotle. Parts of Animals, Movement of Animals, Progression of Animals. .
  2. Weber W, Weber E. Mechanics of the Human Walking Apparatus. .
  3. Baker R. The history of gait analysis before the advent of modern computers.. Gait Posture 2007 Sep;26(3):331-42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.10.014pubmed: 17306979google scholar: lookup
  4. Gardner S. Horse in motion. [Running at a 1:40 gait over the Palo Alto track, 19th June 1878].
  5. Muybridge E. The science of the horse’s motion. Sci. Am. 1878;39:241.
  6. Marey É.-J.. La méthode graphique dans les sciences expérimentales et principalement en physiologie et en médecine. 2nd Ed. G. Masson. (1885).
  7. Kung SM, Fink PW, Legg SJ, Ali A, Shultz SP. What factors determine the preferred gait transition speed in humans? A review of the triggering mechanisms.. Hum Mov Sci 2018 Feb;57:1-12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2017.10.023pubmed: 29121506google scholar: lookup
  8. Hoyt DF, Taylor CR. Gait and the energetics of locomotion in horses. Nature 1981;292:239–240.
    doi: 10.1038/292239a0google scholar: lookup
  9. Hreljac A. Determinants of the gait transition speed during human locomotion: kinematic factors.. J Biomech 1995 Jun;28(6):669-77.
    doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(94)00120-Spubmed: 7601866google scholar: lookup
  10. Diedrich FJ, Warren WH Jr. Why change gaits? Dynamics of the walk-run transition.. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1995 Feb;21(1):183-202.
    doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.183pubmed: 7707029google scholar: lookup
  11. Hreljac A. Preferred and energetically optimal gait transition speeds in human locomotion.. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993 Oct;25(10):1158-62.
    doi: 10.1016/0966-6362(93)90049-7pubmed: 8231761google scholar: lookup
  12. Marigold DS, Patla AE. Age-related changes in gait for multi-surface terrain.. Gait Posture 2008 May;27(4):689-96.
    doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.09.005pubmed: 17962018google scholar: lookup
  13. Gazzola M, Argentina M, Mahadevan L. Gait and speed selection in slender inertial swimmers.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015 Mar 31;112(13):3874-9.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1419335112pmc: PMC4386394pubmed: 25770221google scholar: lookup
  14. Tobalske BW. Biomechanics and physiology of gait selection in flying birds.. Physiol Biochem Zool 2000 Nov-Dec;73(6):736-50.
    doi: 10.1086/318107pubmed: 11121347google scholar: lookup
  15. Kelso JA, Holt KG, Rubin P, Kugler PN. Patterns of human interlimb coordination emerge from the properties of non-linear, limit cycle oscillatory processes: theory and data.. J Mot Behav 1981 Dec;13(4):226-61.
    doi: 10.1080/00222895.1981.10735251pubmed: 15215072google scholar: lookup
  16. Kelso JA. Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination.. Am J Physiol 1984 Jun;246(6 Pt 2):R1000-4.
    doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.1984.246.6.R1000pubmed: 6742155google scholar: lookup
  17. MacKay-Lyons M. Central pattern generation of locomotion: a review of the evidence.. Phys Ther 2002 Jan;82(1):69-83.
    doi: 10.1093/ptj/82.1.69pubmed: 11784280google scholar: lookup
  18. Schmidt RC, Carello C, Turvey MT. Phase transitions and critical fluctuations in the visual coordination of rhythmic movements between people.. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1990 May;16(2):227-47.
    doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.2.227pubmed: 2142196google scholar: lookup
  19. Wimmers RH, Beek PJ, Wieringen PCW. Phase transitions in rhythmic tracking movement: A case of unilateral coupling. Hum. Mov. Sci. 1992;11:217–226.
    doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(92)90062-Ggoogle scholar: lookup
  20. Tuller B, Kelso JA. The production and perception of syllable structure.. J Speech Hear Res 1991 Jun;34(3):501-8.
    doi: 10.1044/jshr.3403.501pubmed: 2072673google scholar: lookup
  21. de Jong K, Jin Lim B, Nagao K. Phase transitions in a repetitive speech task as gestural recomposition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001;110:2657.
    doi: 10.1121/1.4777045google scholar: lookup
  22. Yang JF, Stephens MJ, Vishram R. Infant stepping: a method to study the sensory control of human walking.. J Physiol 1998 Mar 15;507 ( Pt 3)(Pt 3):927-37.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.1998.927bs.xpmc: PMC2230816pubmed: 9508851google scholar: lookup
  23. de Guzman CP, Roy RR, Hodgson JA, Edgerton VR. Coordination of motor pools controlling the ankle musculature in adult spinal cats during treadmill walking.. Brain Res 1991 Aug 2;555(2):202-14.
    doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(91)90343-Tpubmed: 1933334google scholar: lookup
  24. Barlow SM, Lund JP, Estep M, Kolta A. Central pattern generators for orofacial movements and speech. Handb. Behav. Neurosci. 2010;19:351–369.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374593-4.00033-4google scholar: lookup
  25. Kier W, Smith K. Tongues, tentacles and trunks: The biomechanics of movement in muscular-hydrostats. Zool. J. Linnean Soc. 1985;83:307–324.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1985.tb01178.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  26. Gay T. Mechanism in the control of speech rate.. Phonetica 1981;38(1-3):148-58.
    doi: 10.1159/000260020pubmed: 7267717google scholar: lookup
  27. Sternberg S, Knoll RL, Monsell S, Wright CE. Motor programs and hierarchical organization in the control of rapid speech. Phonetica 1988;45:175–197.
    doi: 10.1159/000261825google scholar: lookup
  28. Rodd J, Bosker HR, Ernestus M, Alday PM, Meyer AS, Ten Bosch L. Control of speaking rate is achieved by switching between qualitatively distinct cognitive "gaits": Evidence from simulation.. Psychol Rev 2020 Mar;127(2):281-304.
    doi: 10.1037/rev0000172pubmed: 31886696google scholar: lookup
  29. Rodd J, Bosker HR, Erenestus M, ten Bosch L, Meyer AS. Asymmetric switch costs between speaking rates: Experimental evidence for ‘gaits’ of speech planning. Manuscr. Submitt. Publ. 2020;1:1–35.
  30. Stone M, Epstein MA, Iskarous K. Functional segments in tongue movement.. Clin Linguist Phon 2004 Sep-Dec;18(6-8):507-21.
    doi: 10.1080/02699200410003583pubmed: 15573487google scholar: lookup
  31. Derrick D, Gick B. Individual variation in English flaps and taps: A case of categorical phonetics. Can. J. Linguist. 2011;56:307–319.
    doi: 10.1353/cjl.2011.0024google scholar: lookup
  32. Derrick D, Stavness I, Gick B. Three speech sounds, one motor action: evidence for speech-motor disparity from English flap production.. J Acoust Soc Am 2015 Mar;137(3):1493-502.
    doi: 10.1121/1.4906831pmc: PMC4384766pubmed: 25786960google scholar: lookup
  33. Derrick D, Gick B. Accommodation of end-state comfort reveals subphonemic planning in speech.. Phonetica 2014;71(3):183-200.
    doi: 10.1159/000369630pmc: PMC4464800pubmed: 25790787google scholar: lookup
  34. Skinner JE, Molnar M, Tomberg C. The point correlation dimension: performance with nonstationary surrogate data and noise.. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 1994 Jul-Sep;29(3):217-34.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02691327pubmed: 7811643google scholar: lookup
  35. Strunk G, Schiepek G. Systemische psychologie (Einfuhrung in die komplexen grundlagen menschlichen verhaltens. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag; 2006.
  36. Kowalik ZJ, Elbert T. A practical method for the measurements of the chaoticity of electric and magnetic brain activity. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. 1995;5:475–490.
    doi: 10.1142/S0218127495000375google scholar: lookup
  37. Kowalik ZJ, Schiepek G, Kumpf K, Roberts LE, Elbert T. Psychotherapy as a chaotic process II. The application of nonlinear analysis methods on quasi time series of the client-therapist interaction: A nonstationary approach. Psochother. Res. 1997;7:197–218.
    doi: 10.1080/10503309712331331973google scholar: lookup
  38. Rosenstein MT, Collins JJ, de Luca CJ. A practical method for calculating largest lyapunov exponents from small data sets. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 1993;65:117–134.
    doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(93)90009-Pgoogle scholar: lookup
  39. Schiepek G, Strunk G. The identification of critical fluctuations and phase transitions in short term and coarse-grained time series-a method for the real-time monitoring of human change processes.. Biol Cybern 2010 Mar;102(3):197-207.
    doi: 10.1007/s00422-009-0362-1pubmed: 20084517google scholar: lookup
  40. Rosenbaum DA, Vaughan J, Barnes HJ, Jorgensen MJ. Time course of movement planning: selection of handgrips for object manipulation.. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1992 Sep;18(5):1058-73.
    doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1058pubmed: 1402710google scholar: lookup
  41. Rosenbaum DA, van Heugten CM, Caldwell GE. From cognition to biomechanics and back: the end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect.. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1996 Oct;94(1):59-85.
    doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00062-3pubmed: 8885711google scholar: lookup
  42. Weiss DJ, Wark JD, Rosenbaum DA. Monkey see, monkey plan, monkey do: the end-state comfort effect in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).. Psychol Sci 2007 Dec;18(12):1063-8.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02026.xpubmed: 18031413google scholar: lookup
  43. Chapman KM, Weiss DJ, Rosenbaum DA. Evolutionary roots of motor planning: the end-state comfort effect in lemurs.. J Comp Psychol 2010 May;124(2):229-32.
    doi: 10.1037/a0018025pubmed: 20476823google scholar: lookup
  44. Kochetov A. Research methods in articulatory phonetics I: Introduction and studying oral gestures. Lang. Linguist. Compass. 2020;14:1–29.
    doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12368google scholar: lookup
  45. Noble W. Identifying Normal and Non-normal Hearing: Methods and Paradoxes. WARC talk, MARCS Auditory Laboratory. (2011).
  46. Zue VW, Laferriere M. Acoustic study of medial /t, d/ in American English. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1979;66:1039–1050.
    doi: 10.1121/1.383323google scholar: lookup
  47. Derrick D, Best CT, Fiasson R. Non-metallic ultrasound probe holder for co-collection and co-registration with EMA. In Proceedings of 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), 1–5 (2015).
  48. Peirce JW. PsychoPy--Psychophysics software in Python.. J Neurosci Methods 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017pmc: PMC2018741pubmed: 17254636google scholar: lookup
  49. Garcia D. Robust smoothing of gridded data in one and higher dimensions with missing values.. Comput Stat Data Anal 2010 Apr 1;54(4):1167-1178.
    doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2009.09.020pmc: PMC4008475pubmed: 24795488google scholar: lookup
  50. Garcia D. A fast all-in-one method for automated post-processing of PIV data.. Exp Fluids 2011 May 1;50(5):1247-1259.
    doi: 10.1007/s00348-010-0985-ypmc: PMC4006822pubmed: 24795497google scholar: lookup
  51. Tiede M. MVIEW: Multi-channel visualization application for displaying dynamic sensor movements. (2010).
  52. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, https://www.R-project.org/. (2021).
  53. Wood SN. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. (B) 2011;73:3–36.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  54. van Rij J, Wieling M, Baayen RH, van Rijn H. itsadug: Interpreting time series and autocorrelated data using GAMMs. R package version 2.4. (2020).
  55. Modersitzki R. The Influence of Time Spent in Beginning and End-state Postures on Grab Choice. Honour’s thesis, Utah State University (2018).
  56. Rieffel J, Knox D, Smith S, Trimmer B. Growing and evolving soft robots.. Artif Life 2014 Winter;20(1):143-62.
    doi: 10.1162/ARTL_a_00101pubmed: 23373976google scholar: lookup
  57. Gong D, Jan J, Zuo G. A review of gait optimization based on evolutionary computation. Appl. Comput. Intell. Soft Comput. 2010;1–12:2010.
    doi: 10.1155/2010/413179google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.