2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6393(99)00045-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Combination of machine scores for automatic grading of pronunciation quality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
60
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…(2) The modern educational technology Active learning highlights the main position of students in the learning process while the teachers only play a role of organization and guidance in the process so as to promote students to construct knowledge and process information in a better way [11]. Textbooks are no longer the only learning content as a variety of modern technology in the teaching process are the cognitive tools for students to take the initiative to learn.…”
Section: B Factors Affecting Active Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2) The modern educational technology Active learning highlights the main position of students in the learning process while the teachers only play a role of organization and guidance in the process so as to promote students to construct knowledge and process information in a better way [11]. Textbooks are no longer the only learning content as a variety of modern technology in the teaching process are the cognitive tools for students to take the initiative to learn.…”
Section: B Factors Affecting Active Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Franco et al (2000aFranco et al ( , 2000b) present a system for automatic evaluation of the pronunciation quality of both native and nonnative speakers of English on the phone level and the sentence level (EduSpeak).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An early example is Pols et al (1973), in which the automatic classification of Dutch monophthongs was investigated. More recently, research specifically targeted toward automatic pronunciation quality measures that can be employed in ASR-based CAPT systems has focused on confidence scoring (Witt, 1999;Franco et al, 2000;Yoon et al, 2010;Wei et al, 2009;van Doremalen et al, 2009) using ASR-based techniques. This type of research has shown that pronunciation errors can be accurately detected to a certain extent (Witt, 1999;Franco et al, 2000;Cucchiarini et al, 2009;Wei et al, 2009) and that difficulties may arise when it comes to identifying pronunciation errors that are based on subtle acoustic differences .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper we argue that the error patterns that can derive from such interference are factors that can be utilized in the computation of automatic measures of pronunciation quality to improve their performance. So far various measures of pronunciation quality have been proposed (Witt, 1999;Franco et al, 2000) that manage to identify relatively conspicuous errors. However, in our own research, we found that the widely used GOP scoring algorithm (Witt, 1999) has difficulties in detecting subtle errors in target phonemes with acoustically close "neighboring" phonemes .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%