Combining in-domain and out-of-domain speech data for automatic recognition of disordered speech
Open accessAbstract
Recently there has been increasing interest in ways of using out-of-domain (OOD) data to improve automatic speech recognition performance in domains where only limited data is available. This paper focuses on one such domain, namely that of disordered speech for which only very small databases exist, but where normal speech can be considered OOD. Standard approaches for handling small data domains use adaptation from OOD models into the target domain, but here we investigate an alternative approach with its focus on the feature extraction stage: OOD data is used to train feature-generating deep belief neural networks. Using AMI meeting and TED talk datasets, we investigate various tandem-based speaker independent systems as well as maximum a posteriori adapted speaker dependent systems. Results on the UAspeech isolated word task of disordered speech are very promising with our overall best system (using a combination of AMI and TED data) giving a correctness of 62.5 an increase of 15% on previously best published results based on conventional model adaptation. We show that the relative benefit of using OOD data varies considerably from speaker to speaker and is only loosely correlated with the severity of a speaker's impairments.
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
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 63
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- H. Hermansky, D. Ellis, and S. Sharma, "Tandem con- nectionist feature extraction for conventional HMM sys- tems," in Proceedings of ICASSP'00, Istanbul, Turkey, June 2000, pp. 1635-1630.
- M. Aniol, "Tandem features for dysarthic speech recogni- tion," Master's thesis, Edinburgh University, United King- dom, 2012.
- Authors
- Christensen, H., Aniol, M. B., Bell, P., Green, P. D., Hain, T., King, S., & Swietojanski, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Venue
- Interspeech 2013
- Publisher
- ISCA
- Published
- 2013-08-25
- Pages
- 3642-3645
- ISSN
- 2308-457X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2396944218
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.94
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Interspeech (USB) (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- out-of-domain data, limited training data, deep belief network, feature extraction, model adaptation, maximum a posteriori adaptation, isolated word recognition, AMI meeting corpus
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