Detecting Speech Without Microphones

kyle90 writes "New Scientist is reporting on a new way of detecting speech without using microphones, using electrodes places on the neck that measure muscle activity and nerve impulses. Apparently the user doesn't even need to speak the words out loud in order for them to be detected. This looks like pretty neat technology; if used with cell phones it could give the user a little more privacy, and the rest of us a little more peace and quiet."

Comments

still annoying

[iggymanz]

then we'd have to look at idiots moving their mouth in exaggerated motions....

Huh?

[Javanista]

How do you get the same nerve impulses in your neck if your vocal cords are not vibrating?

Re:Huh?

[CSMastermind]

The process of speech is one that involves several steps, you must inhale, make your vocal cords viberate, exhale through the viberating vocal cords, and then use your mouth and tounge to shape the air as it's going out to produce a certain sound. Any one of these steps can be done by itself but it won't produce speech. It's the same way you can "mouth" words to a freind who's sitting on the opposite side of a quite room, you are saying the words...just very quitely so that nobody can hear them.

Re:Huh?

[InternationalCow]

It works by virtue of the fact that your motor cortex plans ahead. So, even while you have not yet consciously taken the decision to speak yet, your motor cortex has already set up the appropriate commands and sent them out to the nerves involved. This translates to an increased firing rate in these nerves, which is not enough to move the muscles but will be sufficient to register on sufficiently sensitive equipment. In fact (other discussion entirely, but fascinating nonetheless) most of our "voluntary" decisions appear to be made before we become aware of them. So much for free will :)

Re:Huh?

[Javanista]

Yeah, but nerves send data in both directions. You get feedback from the vocal cords when they're working (as well as all the other tissue around them). It just seems like 'mouthing' words would exclude a lot of data from those neural pathways vs. actually saying them...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be the process for Americans. With most people, however, using their brain to think about what to say is the first step in speech production.

Re:Huh?

[Transcendent]

So, even while you have not yet consciously taken the decision to speak yet, your motor cortex has already set up the appropriate commands and sent them out to the nerves involved. ... In fact (other discussion entirely, but fascinating nonetheless) most of our "voluntary" decisions appear to be made before we become aware of them. So much for free will :)

That argument against free will is flawed. I've heard it many times, and it's always because of an assumption made on the events leading up to an action. It assumes that you make the decision to speak after your brain starts to setup speech for you... which is rediculous. We're not aware of them because we're not that in tune with our brain/body... which is how we function efficiently; we don't have to sweat the small stuff (Like keeping our heart beating? Perfectly controlling exactly which muscles to fire in walking?).

There are many events before you actually speak that involve your decision to speak, such as thinking of (obviously) what to say, how to phrase it, tone of voice... even taking in breath before actually speaking. Even thinking "hmm... should I say this to so and so person" is a decision that would induce a response along the lines of speaking.

Basically, you've already made the decision (consciously on some level at least) to speak before you do it, but it is possible to stop yourself right before you actually speak.

Re:Huh?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

True, but irrelevant. The latency from the periphery to the cortex is typically on the order of 100ms, which is a far longer interval than most speech gestures actually take to complete. Speech is basically half-duplex.

Re:Huh?

[piper-noiter]

This would have interesting military applications. Unit communication... but then again it would break radio silence.

Re:Huh?

[JustOK]

Mebbe your eyes are slow. Or the mirror had a slow response time.

Quick

[Dachannien]

However, both systems come at a cost. Because the words are produced by a computer, the receiver of the call would hear the speaker talking with an artificial voice. But for some that may be a price worth paying for a little peace and quiet.

Get one of these for Ashlee Simpson, pronto!

Re:Quick

[oedneil]

I think Ashlee's voice is already computer-edited and synthesized enough that it could be considered an artificial voice.

Re:Quick

[Mahou]

hahaha +1, insightful. i love slashdot so much

Anybody ever read Ender's Game?

[Nate4D]

This sounds almost exactly like the subvocalization technology that Ender uses to communicate with Jane in the later books.

As those who've read it will remember, silent communication while around others can lead to a whole new set of problems all it's own... Especially when it's apparent that you're communicating, but not what you're saying.

heh

[B3ryllium]

.

I just said something, guess what it was?

Hearing a computer talk at you...

[Faust7]

However, both systems come at a cost. Because the words are produced by a computer, the receiver of the call would hear the speaker talking with an artificial voice.

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, I'd rather not have my friends/parents/S.O. all sound like him.

Expletive NOT deleted

[G4from128k]

This is a great idea until you mutter some expletive under your breath while talking to your boss. I can also foresee some embarrassments for those that can't read without moving their lips.

Vocal cords

[DaLukester]

My first question is this: The vocal cords are resonators, they move because air is moving over them. If the cords aren't making any noise, it's because they aren't moving. If they aren't moving how does this system pick up their movement. If you have to sub vocalise (ie mumble quietly to yourself) then how is this different from the throat mike that has been around for ages. Very skimpy article for the New Scientist (all new, no science)

Re:Vocal cords

[Zenmonkeycat]

It's not working based on the movement of the vocal chords, it's working based on the electrical impulses sent from the brain to muscles in the throat and mouth. I'm sure that the tension of the vocal chords could be measured, but the chords themselves don't have to be moving.

Vocal chords themselves are not resonators, they simply excite motion in the air. The throat, mouth, nasal passages and sinuses are the resonators, sort of like the body of a guitar resonates with the sound excited by a string being plucked.

Re:Vocal cords

[wik]

I'm also suspicious. The distinction between many sounds is the placement or movement of the tongue. For instance, I can whisper and be understandable without moving my vocal cords. They describe this device as something that "detects" speech by observing the vocal cords, not the tongue. How does it work?

Also, it sounds like the speech is recognized and converted into words in this system (as in Sphyinx or commercial voice recognition software?). The accuracy of even the best voice recognition software is still too poor to be used in general applications (and requires a fast P4 to do the recognition in real-time). It'll be a while before any cell phones carry this.

Also known as

[Jobeyonekenobi]

This reminds me of some Ann mccaffrey novels where the main characters communicate via 'sub-vocalisation'. It was a skill that needed to be learned and ended up being a slight movement of the jaws and some light humming when people were talking. If I remember correctly, also through some of Vernor Vinges' novels (namely A Deepness in the Sky)

There's more to come?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can already see the next challenge: generating speech not based on muscle nerve signals, but directly on brain activity...

Options for military / police uses seem unlimited. However I wouldn't really want that blonde to know what my nerves are doing about her...

How very 1980's.

[Conor Turton]

Jesus...living in the 80's? Military radios were using throat mikes back in the 80's.

Re:How very 1980's.

[Monx]

Jesus...living in the 80's? Military radios were using throat mikes back in the 80's.

RTFTitle: Detecting Speech Without Microphones.

Get it? There's no microphone.

privacy

[icepick72]

However, both systems come at a cost. Because the words are produced by a computer, the receiver of the call would hear the speaker talking with an artificial voice.

And the cost of implicitly having every single word of your conversation immediately recorded into digital format. Very archivable.

How is this different form NASA's version?

[alex_guy_CA]

"NASA Develops System To Computerize Silent, "Subvocal Speech" "

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_04093_ subvocal_speech.html

Are they using different methods? If they are (no time to RTHA) that would be cool, as it might double the chances of a working system.

Subconscious speech?

[Paul Townend]

Could this have interesting ramifications when used in an interrogation? Would subvocal speech include bursts of what someone was thinking but did not want to say? Or anything from the subconscious?

Re:Subconscious speech?

[Threni]

It's nothing to do with the subconcious. It's just reading people's muscles instead of their lips. "Mind readers" (such as Derren Brown), "clairvoyants" and other such con artists use this technique, amongst others.

Dear Mr. Anderson,

[ImaLamer]

What good are electrodes when you can't vibrate your vocal cords?

I have been communicating without speech for years

[Timesprout]

I see a pretty girl, I get a bulge in my pants. Pretty girls sees me, sees bulge, smacks me in the face. Not a word said yet we are all perfectly clear where we stand.

Swiss army has had these for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

We use it usually in places with noise like tanks. The receiver doesn't hear any background noise. Would be great for night clubs :)

You realize we all look crazy

[darkonc]

The other day, I walked by someone who was sitting on a park bench by himeelf and talking to nothing/nobody in particular. It hit me that, 10 years ago, I would have taken this as a clear sign that the poor sod was completely off of his rocker. These days, however, if you see someone doing that, best bet is that (s)he's got a handfree cell phone on him and is talking to someone real.

Now, I'm gonna have to deal with people walking around Mumbling to themselves!

The next time I walk into an insane asylum^W^W Mental Health Facility, the only way I'm gonna be able to tell the difference between the visitors/staff and the patients is goint to be by looking for a badge.

Actually, now that I mention it...

Creeping people out

[EnsilZah]

I can't wait to have one so i could hook it up to some speakers and talk to people without moving my lips.

Would probably creep people out... i mean... more than i usually do.. =\

Re:Technology

[argent]

But you'd look like a lunatic walking around moving your mouth but not talking?

People talking on handsfree cells already look like that.

Brin

[SWroclawski]

This is very similar to David Brin's idea in the Book "Earth" with people needing to wear a strap on thier chin to measure the elctrical impulses for the very same reason.

In the book he postulates that doing so, the actual movement can be reduced, and in time, you can speak quicker with this method than you can when actually vocalizing.

Bone-induction Mics

[LordMyren]

aircraft pilots have been using bone-induction mic's since WWII; there's no other way to block out the background noise. this is interesting because it reads from the nervous system directly

are there any good bone-induction mics for cell phone / portable usage? i spent a while looking a couple years back and turned up two things, both of which were ear-mounted. i'd much rather a throat mounted system; i imagine its much better able to pick up sound.

Re:Bone-induction Mics

[don.g]

Bone induction microphones do *not* read from the nervous system. They pick up vibrations in your bones (typically jaw bone, I think, but I could be wrong). Your ears do the same thing, which is why you sound different to how you normally hear yourself when you record your voice and play it back - you're missing the sound conducted by your bones to your ear.

NEWS AT 11!

[way2trivial]

Half duples

so-- people talk without listening?

(I couldn't resist)

Ear mounted

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The ear mounted microphones have the benefit of being two-way devices. You can talk and listen with them. With a bone microphone you still need some sort of headphones to listen in a high noise environment.

Solid Snake did this years ago

[Laconian]

Remember Snake doing this on MGS?