An Intelligent Multimedia E-Learning System for Pronunciations

Huang, Wen‐Chen; Chang-Chien, Tsai-Lu; Lin, Hsiu-Pi

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73325-6_9

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies report evaluations of such applications (Bernstein et al 1990;Witt & Young 2000;Neumeyer et al 2000;Franco et al 2000;Cucchiarini et al 2000;Huang et al 2007;Moustroufas et al 2007;Cincarek et al 2009). In all of these studies the automatic acceptability ratings are compared to human acceptability judgments by determining both human-human and human-machine correlations (the human-human correlations serve as a benchmark).…”

Section: Related Work With Automatic Speech Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Acceptability of sign manipulations

Arendsen

Doorn

Riddera³

2010

SL&L

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study contains the results of an experiment in which signers were asked to judge the acceptability of a set of sign manipulations. Signs were recorded with variations in different categories, in the temporal and spatial dimension. Participants varied much in tolerance, i.e. in the percentage of movies they judged to be acceptable, but their rankings of the acceptability of sign manipulations correlated well. On the level of dimensionality, we found that temporal manipulations were highly acceptable while spatial (and spatiotemporal) manipulations were often judged unacceptable. Further division of the manipulations into categories, such as changes in hand orientation or movement direction, showed much variability and little regularity. The roles of phonology and iconicity in acceptability judgments were studied. Part of the variability in the acceptability of sign manipulations could be explained on the basis of the type of phonological error caused by each manipulation, and by considering a sign's iconicity and classifying whether manipulations are compatible or incompatible with that iconicity. Finally, human judgments were compared to acceptability ratings by three automatic sign recognizers for three of the signs. With some exceptions, the rankings of the acceptability of sign manipulations as calculated by these sign recognizers did not correlate well with the rankings by humans.

show abstract