ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
The Effects of Electromagnetic Articulography Sensors on Speech in Individuals With and Without Parkinson's Disease.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis 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.
methodThirty-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).
resultsBayesian 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.
conclusionsEMA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.