The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparative study of traditional and newly proposed features for recognition of speech under stress
Abstract
It is well known that the performance of speech recognition algorithms degrade in the presence of adverse environments where a speaker is under stress, emotion, or Lombard (1911) effect. This study evaluates the effectiveness of traditional features in recognition of speech under stress and formulates new features which are shown to improve stressed speech recognition. The focus is on formulating robust features which are less dependent on the speaking conditions rather than applying compensation or adaptation techniques. The stressed speaking styles considered are simulated angry and loud. Lombard effect speech, and noisy actual stressed speech from the SUSAS database which is available on a CD-ROM through the NATO IST/TG-01 research group and LDC. In addition, this study investigates the immunity of the linear prediction power spectrum and fast Fourier transform power spectrum to the presence of stress. Our results show that unlike fast Fourier transform's (FFT) immunity to noise, the linear prediction power spectrum is more immune than FFT to stress as well as to a combination of a noisy and stressful environment. Finally, the effect of various parameter processing such as fixed versus variable preemphasis, liftering, and fixed versus cepstral mean normalization are studied. Two alternative frequency partitioning methods are proposed and compared with traditional mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) features for stressed speech recognition. It is shown that the alternate filterbank frequency partitions are more effective for recognition of speech under both simulated and actual stressed conditions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Davis, S., & Mermelstein, P. (1980) · IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tassp.1980.1163420 · Cited by 5,465
Emotions and speech: some acoustical correlates.
Williams, C. E., & Stevens, K. N. (1972) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1913238 · Cited by 735 · cited 1×
“Previous analysis studies on stressed speech have shown that the spectral structure and overall average spectral slope varies for different speaking conditions [5], [21], [31]–[34].”
BackgroundSpeech recognition in noisy environments: A survey
Gong, Y. (1995) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/0167-6393(94)00059-j · Cited by 635
Cited by
Godino-Llorente, J. I., Gomez-Vilda, P., & Blanco-Velasco, M. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2006.871883 · Cited by 322
Speech Under Stress: Analysis, Modeling and Recognition
Hansen, J. H. L., & Patil, S. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74200-5_6 · Cited by 162
Self-citationPhysical task stress and speaker variability in voice quality.
Godin, K. W., & Hansen, J. H. L. (2015) · EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing · doi:10.1186/s13636-015-0072-7 · Cited by 32
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bou-Ghazale, S. E., & Hansen, J. H. L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 429-442
- ISSN
- 1063-6676 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096503735
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparative study of traditional and newly proposed features for recognition of speech under stress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/89.848224
- The paper
- Bou-Ghazale, S. E., & Hansen, J. H. L. (2000). A comparative study of traditional and newly proposed features for recognition of speech under stress. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/89.848224
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.