Comments on: Found in Translation http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604 Feel Smart Again Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:46:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jezebel http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604/comment-page-1#comment-4363 Jezebel Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:54:27 +0000 http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604#comment-4363 The missing link in the article is the 'translation' bit. What the research is trying to do, as the title you quote makes clear, is use electromyography to recognise speech. To recognise speech is not (in itself, anyway) to translate it. I too find the underlying topic fascinating, and I'm absolutely with you in drawing attention to good research. But let's not get carried away, nor subscribe to popular press nonsense, about where that research might be leading. The missing link in the article is the ‘translation’ bit. What the research is trying to do, as the title you quote makes clear, is use electromyography to recognise speech. To recognise speech is not (in itself, anyway) to translate it.

I too find the underlying topic fascinating, and I’m absolutely with you in drawing attention to good research. But let’s not get carried away, nor subscribe to popular press nonsense, about where that research might be leading.

]]> By: Mangesh http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604/comment-page-1#comment-4348 Mangesh Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:04:12 +0000 http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604#comment-4348 hey Jezebel: I'm always happy to read another view. I'm not sure I understand quite clearly what you're pointing out, though. I was trying to say that this is a work in progress, and that the device uses the electrodes to understand the words in a new and unique way. The idea sounds fascinating to me. From what I could tell though, the UPENN link posted was basically pointing out the flaws in the system, and how it doesn't read words accurately yet. I was just pointing out the novelty of the idea. Also, I don't think the post was disingenous. I think the underlying research does sort of make the claim stated, with the paper you've referenced being titled, "Towards Continuous Speech Recognition Using Surface Electromyography." It seems from a thoroughly non-academics' view (my own!) to be making that claim. In any case, we're happy to leave your link up to encourage people to view the evidence for themselves. Diverse opinions are always welcome here. hey Jezebel: I’m always happy to read another view. I’m not sure I understand quite clearly what you’re pointing out, though. I was trying to say that this is a work in progress, and that the device uses the electrodes to understand the words in a new and unique way. The idea sounds fascinating to me. From what I could tell though, the UPENN link posted was basically pointing out the flaws in the system, and how it doesn’t read words accurately yet. I was just pointing out the novelty of the idea. Also, I don’t think the post was disingenous. I think the underlying research does sort of make the claim stated, with the paper you’ve referenced being titled, “Towards Continuous Speech Recognition Using Surface Electromyography.” It seems from a thoroughly non-academics’ view (my own!) to be making that claim. In any case, we’re happy to leave your link up to encourage people to view the evidence for themselves. Diverse opinions are always welcome here.

]]> By: Jezebel http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604/comment-page-1#comment-4344 Jezebel Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:29:26 +0000 http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/2604#comment-4344 An actual reading of the piece will uickly set you straight on what nonsense this article is. The underlying research didn't make anything remotely like this claim. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003709.html An actual reading of the piece will uickly set you straight on what nonsense this article is. The underlying research didn’t make anything remotely like this claim.

See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003709.html

]]>