CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Phonetics and Phonology ResearchSpeech Recognition and SynthesisSpeech and Audio Processing

Estimating speech spectra for copy synthesis by linear prediction and by hand

Open access
Remez, Robert E., Dubowski, Kathryn R., Davids, Morgana L., Thomas, Emily F., Paddu, Nina U., Grossman, Yael S., Moskalenko, Marina·2011·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/1.3631667PMC PMC3206912
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Linear prediction is a widely available technique for analyzing acoustic properties of speech, although this method is known to be error-prone. New tests assessed the adequacy of linear prediction estimates by using this method to derive synthesis parameters and testing the intelligibility of the synthetic speech that results. Matched sets of sine-wave sentences were created, one set using uncorrected linear prediction estimates of natural sentences, the other using estimates made by hand. Phoneme restrictions imposed on linguistic properties allowed comparisons between continuous and intermittent voicing, oral or nasal and fricative manner, and unrestricted phonemic variation. Intelligibility tests revealed uniformly good performance with sentences created by hand-estimation and a minimal decrease in intelligibility with estimation by linear prediction due to manner variation with continuous voicing. Poorer performance was observed when linear prediction estimates were used to produce synthetic versions of phonemically unrestricted sentences, but no similar decline was observed with synthetic sentences produced by hand estimation. The results show a substantial intelligibility cost of reliance on uncorrected linear prediction estimates when phonemic variation approaches natural incidence.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.3631667

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sine-wave speech is typically unintelligible on first exposure and may not be noticed as being speech-like; once the listener knows that it is potentially intelligible, relatively high levels of comprehension can be achieved.

    “SWS is typically unintelligible on first exposure and may not be noticed as being speech-like (often sounding like 'aliens' or birdsong).Once the listener knows that it is potentially intelligible, though, relatively high levels of comprehension can be achieved (Remez et al., 2011;Rosen et al., 2011).”

    From Distinct processing of ambiguous speech in people with non-clinical auditory verbal hallucinations (2017) · cites this paper as Remez et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Kalikow, Stevens, and Elliott (1977). 3 Stubbs and Summerfield (1990). 4 IEEE (1969).
  2. Johnson, K. R. (1997). Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics (Blackwell, Cam- bridge, MA), pp. 3-165.
  3. Markel, J. D., and Gray, H. H., Jr. (1976). Linear Prediction of Speech (Springer, New York).
  4. Rubin, P. E. (1980). Sinewave synthesis {Internal memorandum} (pp. 1-20). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Remez, R. E., Dubowski, K. R., Davids, M. L., Thomas, E. F., Paddu, N. U., Grossman, Y. S., & Moskalenko, M.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
2011-10-01
Volume
130
Issue
4
Pages
2173-2178
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/1.3631667
PMC
PMC3206912
OpenAlex
W1990002104
Cited by
26
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC000308, R01DC000308)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
Keywords
speech synthesis, linear prediction, speech spectra, intelligibility, sine-wave speech, phonemic variation, voicing, manner of articulation, synthetic speech
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Audiometry, Speech, Humans, Male, Phonetics, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Sound Spectrography, Speech Acoustics, Speech Intelligibility, Time Factors, Linear Models, Speech Recognition Software

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