Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96
DOI: 10.1109/icslp.1996.607048
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic detection and segmentation of pronunciation variants in German speech corpora

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Schuppler and colleagues (2011) automatically transcribed part of the spontaneous speech incorporated in the IFA corpus (van Son, Binnenpoorte, van den Heuvel, & Pols, 2001) and found that 14% of the segments were transcribed differently in their transcriptions than in the transcriptions created with a different automatic method and corrected by human transcribers. Since disagreements between human transcribers may vary between 5.6% and 58%, depending on the degree of spontaneity of the speech (Kipp, Wesenick, & Schiel, 1996, 1997Ernestus & Baayen, 2011), these results strongly suggest that the transcriptions automatically generated with their transcriber and procedure are as reliable as human made transcriptions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…Schuppler and colleagues (2011) automatically transcribed part of the spontaneous speech incorporated in the IFA corpus (van Son, Binnenpoorte, van den Heuvel, & Pols, 2001) and found that 14% of the segments were transcribed differently in their transcriptions than in the transcriptions created with a different automatic method and corrected by human transcribers. Since disagreements between human transcribers may vary between 5.6% and 58%, depending on the degree of spontaneity of the speech (Kipp, Wesenick, & Schiel, 1996, 1997Ernestus & Baayen, 2011), these results strongly suggest that the transcriptions automatically generated with their transcriber and procedure are as reliable as human made transcriptions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…Overall, we observed a 14.0% discrepancy. A comparison of that percentage with values found in the literature shows that our transcription is as reliable as a human transcription: Disagreements between human transcribers may vary between 5.6% and 21.2%, depending on the degree of spontaneity of the speech (Kipp et al, 1997(Kipp et al, , 1996. Moreover, the discrepancy is small compared to other discrepancies between human-made and automatically generated transcriptions reported in the literature.…”
Section: Validation Of the Phonemic Transcription 341 Materials And mentioning
confidence: 57%
“…This difficulty is also reflected in the inter-human labeling disagreement of phonetic transcriptions (5.6% for read speech vs. 21.2% for conversational speech; Kipp et al 1996Kipp et al , 1997. Hence, it is not surprising that our classification performance is overall worse for conversational speech than for read speech.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Schuppler et al 2014), the number of incorrect labels in training and test data is higher. For this same reason, the creation of broad phonetic transcriptions is a much more difficult task for conversational speech than for read speech, which is for instance also reflected by substantially higher inter-labeler disagreement [5.6% for read speech vs. 21.2% for conversational speech (Kipp et al 1996(Kipp et al , 1997]. …”
Section: Impact Of Inaccurate Labelingmentioning
confidence: 99%