We have seen three important trends develop in the last five years in speech recognition. First, heterogeneous parameter sets that mix absolute spectral information with dynamic, or timederivative, spectral information, have become common. Second, similariry transform techniques, often used to normalize and decorrelate parameters in some computationally inexpensive way, have become popular. Third, the signal parameter estimation problem has merged with the speech recognition process so that more sophisticated statistical models of the signal's spectrum can be estimated in a closed-loop manner. In this paper, we review the signal processing components of these algorithms. These algorithms are presented as part of a unified view of the signal parameterization problem in which there are three major tasks: measurement, transformation, and statistical modeling. This paper is by no means a comprehensive survey of all possible techniques of signal modeling in speech recognition. There are far too many algorithms in use today to make an exhaustive survey feasible (and cohesive). Instead, this paper is meant to serve as a tutorial on signal processing in state-of-the-art speech recognition systems and to review those techniques most commonly used. In keeping with this goal, a complete mathematical description of each algorithm has been included in the paper.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The interpretation of electroencephalograms (EEGs) is a process that is still dependent on the subjective analysis of the examiners. Though interrater agreement on critical events such as seizures is high, it is much lower on subtler events (e.g., when there are benign variants). The process used by an expert to interpret an EEG is quite subjective and hard to replicate by machine. The performance of machine learning technology is far from human performance. We have been developing an interpretation system, AutoEEG, with a goal of exceeding human performance on this task. In this work, we are focusing on one of the early decisions made in this process – whether an EEG is normal or abnormal. We explore two baseline classification algorithms: k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN) and Random Forest Ensemble Learning (RF). A subset of the TUH EEG Corpus was used to evaluate performance. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the dimensionality of the data. kNN achieved a 41.8% detection error rate while RF achieved an error rate of 31.7%. These error rates are significantly lower than those obtained by random guessing based on priors (49.5%). The majority of the errors were related to misclassification of normal EEGs.