Rethinking classification results based on read speech, or: why improvements do not always transfer to other speaking styles

Rethinking classification results based on read speech, or: why improvements do not always... With the growing interest among speech scientists in working with natural conversations also the popularity for using articulatory–acoustic features as basic unit increased. They showed to be more suitable than purely phone-based approaches. Even though the motivation for AF classification is driven by the properties of conversational speech, most of the new methods continue to be developed on read speech corpora (e.g., TIMIT). In this paper, we show in two studies that the improvements obtained on read speech do not always transfer to conversational speech. The first study compares four different variants of acoustic parameters for AF classification of both read and conversational speech using support vector machines. Our experiments show that the proposed set of acoustic parameters substantially improves AF classification for read speech, but only marginally for conversational speech. The second study investigates whether labeling inaccuracies can be compensated for by a data selection approach. Again, although an substantial improvement was found with the data selection approach for read speech, this was not the case for conversational speech. Overall, these results suggest that we cannot continue to develop methods for one speech style and expect that improvements transfer to other styles. Instead, the nature of the application data (here: read vs. conversational) should be taken into account already when defining the basic assumptions of a method (here: segmentation in phones), and not only when applying the method to the application data http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Speech Technology Springer Journals

Rethinking classification results based on read speech, or: why improvements do not always transfer to other speaking styles

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/rethinking-classification-results-based-on-read-speech-or-why-br0bILzrcC
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The Author(s)
Subject
Engineering; Signal,Image and Speech Processing; Social Sciences, general; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics)
ISSN
1381-2416
eISSN
1572-8110
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10772-017-9436-y
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

With the growing interest among speech scientists in working with natural conversations also the popularity for using articulatory–acoustic features as basic unit increased. They showed to be more suitable than purely phone-based approaches. Even though the motivation for AF classification is driven by the properties of conversational speech, most of the new methods continue to be developed on read speech corpora (e.g., TIMIT). In this paper, we show in two studies that the improvements obtained on read speech do not always transfer to conversational speech. The first study compares four different variants of acoustic parameters for AF classification of both read and conversational speech using support vector machines. Our experiments show that the proposed set of acoustic parameters substantially improves AF classification for read speech, but only marginally for conversational speech. The second study investigates whether labeling inaccuracies can be compensated for by a data selection approach. Again, although an substantial improvement was found with the data selection approach for read speech, this was not the case for conversational speech. Overall, these results suggest that we cannot continue to develop methods for one speech style and expect that improvements transfer to other styles. Instead, the nature of the application data (here: read vs. conversational) should be taken into account already when defining the basic assumptions of a method (here: segmentation in phones), and not only when applying the method to the application data

Journal

International Journal of Speech TechnologySpringer Journals

Published: Jul 18, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off