Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Secrets of Beatboxing Revealed By MRI

Posted by samzenpus on from the mind-of-doug-e-fresh dept.

united_notions writes "An international team from UCSD and Philips Research have published a paper (article paywalled; extensive free related resources at UCS here) in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, showing the results of real-time magnetic resonance imaging conducted on a beatboxing performer. The authors make interesting comparisons to sounds in many minority languages around the world (such as the 'click' consonants in many African languages); they also show how beatboxing sounds can be represented using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)."

33 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. That weird part of YouTube by filmorris · · Score: 2

    Looks like these researchers landed on that weird part of YouTube again.

    --
    "Hello, IT... Have you tried turning it off and on again? Yeah... No problem."
  2. good use of grant money by mwessel · · Score: 3

    They use an mri machine for this? They charge patients 11k for it's use when they're sick.

    1. Re:good use of grant money by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So they should stop all forms of research until there are no sick people left? I'm sure they're not bumping critical patients to do this work.

      Sometimes in the process of learning how some of these things work, you can stumble on ways to help with other things.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re: good use of grant money by Ferante125 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They do the scans on Sunday night when they are no patients ( I've been a subject in other experiments). But apart from that, if you think that there's no medical value to this research, you need to sit back and do something that enhances your imagination. They've also studied how cancer patients swallow. Besides the vocal tract, the heart is another organ that needs real time mri, so it's no gimmick. Also this research was from USC, not UCSD.

    3. Re:good use of grant money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I once worked in a medical research center where they had a MRI machine, as well as a CT scanner. The funny thing is that a MRI has to be always powered on, so they were always looking for uses, because it was going to use energy whether you used it or not. For example, several coworkers that needed a scan had them done at the center and then transferred to the hospital, on the condition that the center would keep a copy of the data for future use.

    4. Re:good use of grant money by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And they charge patients $400 for an aspirin. Actual costs have nothing to do with what a hospital bills.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:good use of grant money by Hentes · · Score: 1

      No, he said that we should stop forms of research that cost a lot and produces no gains in economy, well-being or knowledge. While collecting random data can sometimes prove to be useful, concentrated research is far more efficient.

  3. Prior art? by PPH · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bpIbdZhrzA

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Secrets revealed? of Beatboxing? by TWX · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I think that the world can stand for a little mystery...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Re: Dammit... by stackdump · · Score: 2

    Get a PhD

  6. Re:Dammit... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    Step 1, spend about a decade getting a PhD.

    Step 2, work for another, more senior researcher for a decade, building up credit in academic research.

    Step 3, spend another decade writing grant proposals and doing research that ties into others' research or acts to confirm or refute others' research.

    Step 4, write this grant proposal and begin this study

    Step 5, profit!

    Don't worry that it only took 30 years to get there...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  7. A good example of the genre. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOwFjyl8Zg

    A good example of the genre.

  8. Editing by bgeezus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note: USC is not the same thing as UCSD is not the same thing as UCS... But for all you naysayers, keep in mind that there is a tremendous amount we don't understand about the way humans produce sound. By studying the fundamental mechanisms behind human speech production, we can gain insight into that process, and can understand more accurately what happens when things go wrong.

  9. Huh? by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1, Funny

    I didn't even know that people cared about "beatboxing". What's next, revealing the secrets of twerking and queefing?

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  10. Re:Live in Kalifornia, where Feinstein can earmark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nevermind the fact that the UC system was gutted by Reagan when he was governor...It used to be nobody paid for college education at UC schools at all.

  11. ah, science you ignorant fool by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

    Science might progress faster and cost less if it wasn't conducted by people clueless about their bodies. Everything they discovered is already known by anybody with beat-boxing and linguistic skills. Bring back the introspectionists I say, cheaper than MRI!

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    1. Re:ah, science you ignorant fool by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

      Science might progress faster and cost less if it wasn't conducted by people clueless about their bodies. Everything they discovered is already known by anybody with beat-boxing and linguistic skills. Bring back the introspectionists I say, cheaper than MRI!

      Actually, people's impressions about what they're doing with their bodies (in terms of speech production) is often not actually what is physiologically happening. Other times, it's very difficult--if not impossible--for the subject to tell what is happening, much less describe it accurately. That's why it's useful to use MRI or other techniques like they did in this study. (Trust me, I'm a linguist?)

      --
      R.Mo
    2. Re:ah, science you ignorant fool by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      (Trust me, I'm a linguist?)

      Is that a question?

      That's a good reason not to trust you. People frequently study the things they don't intuitively grasp.

      Introspectionists are trained to be aware of what's happening in their bodies. That or use well trained autists. Being well versed in echolalia and ipa, saw no surprises with the beatbox stuff. Not being a good singer, I did find the different types of vibrato interesting. Natural talents are usually useless for explaining what is going, those who have had to struggle and train themselves to even get to average competency are goldmines of information.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  12. Rim shot 'sucking in' by nozzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Rather you than me frankly.

  13. TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://sail.usc.edu/span/beatboxing/mmedia/Proctor-Beatboxing-JASA2013.pdf

  14. uh, what? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly sure that the actual cost for an MRI is nowhere near 11k.

    1. Re:uh, what? by Holi · · Score: 1

      No, I am pretty sure it is a tad bit higher.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:uh, what? by umafuckit · · Score: 2

      Firstly, what patients are charged and what it actually costs are two very different things. Secondly, there are a lot of scanners out there, and plenty of them are there for research purposes. Their presence is due to funding from research organisations and their running costs are funded from research organisations. The reason we have real-time MRI and fMRI is because of people doing pure research. Both of these techniques have clinical applications. It is because of this pure research (which you are rubbishing) that partients have access to MRI in the first place.

      --
      soylentnews.org
    3. Re:uh, what? by Jahta · · Score: 1

      Firstly, what patients are charged and what it actually costs are two very different things. Secondly, there are a lot of scanners out there, and plenty of them are there for research purposes. Their presence is due to funding from research organisations and their running costs are funded from research organisations. The reason we have real-time MRI and fMRI is because of people doing pure research. Both of these techniques have clinical applications. It is because of this pure research (which you are rubbishing) that partients have access to MRI in the first place.

      I don't think anybody could reasonably object to research. It clearly has an important role.

      The issue is more whether, in patient care scenarios, you choose to operate your MRI as a profit centre or not. There are many countries whose medical systems give people who are ill access to MRI scanners, and other diagnostic technologies, without charging them extortionate fees for their use.

    4. Re:uh, what? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Forget MRI scanners. This issue is *everywhere* in healthcare. Read the Bitter Pill article in Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html

      --
      soylentnews.org
  15. Re: Dammit... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Don't need a PhD but it helps. I have no degree and I'm still in my role as research director for a horticultural company.

    It just helps to have the degree to show that you can read, write, and understand other technical papers in the field that your degree would typically produce.

    Anyone with enough dedication, and some proven results + luck, can get such a job. But you best make sure your work is top-notch.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  16. Re:Dammit... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Because this research could in no way be used to help people with speech problems.

  17. Yep; it's pronunciation by Millennium · · Score: 1

    I'm told I do decently enough at beatboxing. I don't speak the languages mentioned in the article, but my big secret has always been to reduce each sound to a pronounceable syllable. Then it's just talking in meter, even if what you're saying is nonsense.

  18. Whew! by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    We solved that mystery just in time for 1988.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  19. Acronyms by united_notions · · Score: 1

    Oopsy... both 'UCSD' and 'UCS' should be replaced with 'USC' (i.e. University of Southern California). That'll teach me for concentrating on the HTML.

  20. Re:Live in Kalifornia, where Feinstein can earmark by similar_name · · Score: 3, Informative

    California pays more in Federal taxes than it receives in earmarks. By and large, Blue states pay in more than they receive while Red states receive more than they pay in (Texas is one of, if not the only, exception to this). So, while Democrats are generally thought of as being for bigger federal government and Republicans are for smaller federal government, the Blue states pay for it and the Red states get the benefit. Go figure.

  21. And people still have doubts... by Alejux · · Score: 1

    about the singularity!

  22. 1 person study and we know everything!!!! by Nyder · · Score: 1

    I love science. They take the MRI off 1 person who was beatboxing and now secrets are revealed? What happened to studying a bunch of beat boxers with MRI's and studying the result of all the tests?

    What if this beat boxer is a special person, has a brain unlike anyone elses in the world? How do we know what is normal from this study?

    Beatboxers are NOT rare, so why study just 1?

    --
    Be seeing you...