Linking bottom-up intonation stylization to discourse structure

Reichel, Uwe D.

doi:10.1016/j.csl.2014.03.005

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next to general f0 and energy features we derived register and local pitch event related features from the contour-based, parametric, and superpositional CoPaSul stylization framework [57] representing f0 as a superposition of a global register and a local pitch accent component. This stylization is presented in Figure 1.…”

Section: Prosodic Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrainment profiles: Comparison by gender, role, and feature set

Reichel

Beňuš

Mády

2018

Speech Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine prosodic entrainment in cooperative game dialogs for new feature sets describing register, pitch accent shape, and rhythmic aspects of utterances. For these as well as for established features we present entrainment profiles to detect within-and across-dialog entrainment by the speakers' gender and role in the game. It turned out, that feature sets undergo entrainment in different quantitative and qualitative ways, which can partly be attributed to their different functions. Furthermore, interactions between speaker gender and role (describer vs. follower) suggest gender-dependent strategies in cooperative solution-oriented interactions: female describers entrain most, male describers least. Our data suggests a slight advantage of the latter strategy on task success.

show abstract

Section: Prosodic Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrainment profiles: Comparison by gender, role, and feature set

Reichel

Beňuš

Mády

2018

Speech Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The acoustic measures themselves can often be extracted without human intervention, though most rely on a prior segmentation of the speech signal to designate the word or syllable from which acoustic measures are taken. If word and syllable segmentation can be done automatically, as in Reichel's (2014) CoPaSaul system, then these methods can be used with little human intervention, avoiding the subjectivity of a perceptual annotation. The shortcoming of these methods is that they do not easily perform the cue integration that is automatic for human listeners, nor do they typically take into account the relationship between the acoustic measures of neighboring (or nearby) words.…”

Section: Acoustic Cues and Perceptual Criteria In Prosodic Annotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Methods for Prosodic Transcription: Capturing Variability as a Source of Information

Cole

Shattuck‐Hufnagel

2016

Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the role of prosody in encoding linguistic meaning and in shaping phonetic form requires the analysis of prosodically annotated speech drawn from a wide variety of speech materials. Yet obtaining accurate and reliable prosodic annotations for even small datasets is challenging due to the time and expertise required. We discuss several factors that make prosodic annotation difficult and impact its reliability, all of which relate to variability: in the patterning of prosodic elements (features and structures) as they relate to the linguistic and discourse context, in the acoustic cues for those prosodic elements, and in the parameter values of the cues. We propose two novel methods for prosodic transcription that capture variability as a source of information relevant to the linguistic analysis of prosody. The first is Rapid Prosody Transcription (RPT), which can be performed by non-experts using a simple set of unary labels to mark prominence and boundaries based on immediate auditory impression. Inter-transcriber variability is used to calculate continuous-valued prosody 'scores' that are assigned to each word and represent the perceptual salience of its prosodic features or structure. RPT can be used to model the relative influence of top-down factors and acoustic cues in prosody perception, and to model prosodic variation across many dimensions, including language variety, speech style, or speaker's affect. The second proposed method is the identification of individual cues to the contrastive prosodic elements of an utterance. Cue specification provides a link between the contrastive symbolic categories of prosodic structures and the continuous-valued parameters in the acoustic signal, and offers a framework for investigating how factors related to the grammatical and situational context influence the phonetic form of spoken words and phrases. While cue specification as a transcription tool has not yet been explored as RPT has, it has the potential to provide a level of detail that will be useful in modelling systematic context-governed variation in the implementation of prosodic categories, with applications in automatic speech synthesis and recognition, as well as modelling human speech production and perception. We discuss how RPT and cue specification, particularly when combined, can improve the efficiency and reliability of prosodic transcription and how they can be integrated with expert phonological transcription.

show abstract

“…A comprehensive study of prosody perception would need to examine other acoustic measures, such as sub-band frequency (Sluijter & van Heuven, 1996), measures of F0 contours (Möhler & Conkie, 1998;Reichel, 2014), and measures of irregular pitch periods (Redi & Shattuck-Hufnagel, 2001), along with features related to syntactic phrase structure (Speer et al, 2011), 'accentability' (Calhoun, 2010), and the referential status of expressions (Ito & Speer, 2008;Baumann & Reister, 2012). Nonetheless, though the predictors examined here are clearly not exhaustive, they do define an informative subspace to begin exploring individual differences in the perception of prosody.…”

Section: Selection Of Factors Analyzed and Predicted Effects On Prosomentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception

Roy

Cole

Mahrt

2017

Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenge of prosodic annotation is reflected in commonly reported variability among trained annotators in the assignment of prosodic labels. The present study examines individual differences in the perception of prosody through the lens of prosodic annotation. First, Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) reveal the non-linear pattern of some acoustic cues on the perception of prosodic features. Second, these same models reveal that while some of the untrained annotators are using these cues to determine prosodic features, the magnitude of effect differs quite dramatically across the annotators. Finally, the trained annotators follow the same cues as subsets of the untrained annotators, but present a much stronger effect for many of the cues. The findings show that while prosody perception is systemically related to acoustic and contextual cues, there are also individual differences that are limited to the selection and magnitude of the factors that influence prosodic rating, and the relative weighting among those factors.

show abstract

Linking bottom-up intonation stylization to discourse structure

Cited by 9 publications

References 59 publications

Entrainment profiles: Comparison by gender, role, and feature set

Entrainment profiles: Comparison by gender, role, and feature set

New Methods for Prosodic Transcription: Capturing Variability as a Source of Information

Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About