9 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 31.3 ms ] thread
"That allows mute people to speak" is not part of the original title nor is it accurate. The device in question is a sensor patch whose notable characteristic is it's thin enough to be comfortably attached to the throat for extended periods. The patch reads motions in the throat and sends those signals to an armband computer.

The researchers stated that, in the future, mute people could be trained to generate signals with their throats which the device would translate into speech.

Are you contending that because the device is not part of their body —- or forces a non-functioning part of their body to work —- that they then are not _really_ speaking by having their throat movements synthetically vocalised?

Does this mean someone with a prosthetic hand isn’t _really_ holding something when they use that hand to hold a cup of water? Afterall, the prosthesis isn’t part of their body in the same way this device is, no?

This thing, while basic now, allows mutes to synthesise their speech by analysing the movements in their throat. Movements that happen when a non-mute is speaking. Thats very different than say text-to-speech where I’d be more inclined to agree.

From the HN guidelines: please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. The original title is "WAGT: An artificial throat that’s small like a temporary tattoo"
Ah I see, my mistake.
I read his reply as stating that it is inaccurate to say that the device currently allows mute people to speak.
Subvocalizing is already a thing and devices do exist for interpreting it, I believe.

It's cool that this is so small though.

I might actually be tempted use voice assistant/command software if I could communicate with it silently through a discreet sticker or necklace.