2008 the Third International Conference on Digital Telecommunications (Icdt 2008) 2008
DOI: 10.1109/icdt.2008.36
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparative Analysis of Noise Robust Speech Features Extracted from All-Pass Based Warping with MFCC in a Noisy Phoneme Recognition

Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the noise robustness of three features, namely, the warped discrete Fourier transform cepstrum (WDFTC), perceptual minimum variance distortionless response (PMVDR) and Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC). Here, WDFTC and PMVDR features are generated by adopting all-pass based warping and for the MFCC, we know that spectral warping is generally employed. The PMVDR and WDFTC use warped-LP and warped discrete Fourier transforms, respectively. Particularly, we employ the WDFTC,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 20 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1) include conventional MFCCs and an alternative implementation via direct warping, two warped all-pole models [23,24] and a recent histogram-based technique producing sparse features [21]. Even though some of the methods have been studied in both ASR [25] and speaker verification [26,27], we feel that it is time to present a self-contained summary and comparison within a single study, using a modern i-vector system [22]. We hope the reader finds our study a useful summary of methods otherwise scattered across the literature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1) include conventional MFCCs and an alternative implementation via direct warping, two warped all-pole models [23,24] and a recent histogram-based technique producing sparse features [21]. Even though some of the methods have been studied in both ASR [25] and speaker verification [26,27], we feel that it is time to present a self-contained summary and comparison within a single study, using a modern i-vector system [22]. We hope the reader finds our study a useful summary of methods otherwise scattered across the literature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%