4.5 Article

Consonant confusions in white noise

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 124, 期 2, 页码 1220-1233

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.2913251

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The classic [MN55] confusion matrix experiment (16 consonants, white noise masker) was repeated by using computerized procedures, similar to those of Phatak and Allen (2007). [Consonant and vowel confusions in speech-weighted noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 2312-2316]. The consonant scores in white noise can be categorized in three sets: low-error set {/m/, /n/}, average-error set {/p/, /t/, /k/, /s/, //, /d/, /g/, /z/, /3/}, and high-error set {/f/, /theta/, /b/, /v/, /partial derivative/}. The consonant confusions match those from MN55, except for the highly asymmetric voicing confusions of fricatives, biased in favor of voiced consonants. Masking noise cannot only reduce the recognition of a consonant, but also perceptually morph it into another consonant. There is a significant and systematic variability in the scores and confusion patterns of different utterances of the same consonant, which can be characterized as (a) confusion heterogeneity, where the competitors in the confusion groups of a consonant vary, and (b) threshold variability, where confusion threshold [i.e., signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and score at which the confusion group is formed] varies. The average consonant error and errors for most of the individual consonants and consonant sets can be approximated as exponential functions of the articulation index (AI). An AI that is based on the peak-to-rms ratios of speech can explain the SNR differences across experiments. (C) 2008 Acoustical Society of America.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据