Optimization-based modeling of speech timing

Windmann, Andreas; Simko, Juraj; Wagner, Petra

doi:10.1016/j.specom.2015.09.007

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These models are successful in producing signals with complex durational variations as in natural speech with varying degrees of coordinative or contrastive rhythmicity. What is of importance is that the surface timing as successful outcome of the modelling process is not periodic (see also [64]), and the presence of the periodic temporal-controller is a hypothesis yet to be tested.…”

Section: Rhythm Versus Linguistic Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

Nolan

Jeon

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is speech rhythmic? In the absence of evidence for a traditional view that languages strive to coordinate either syllables or stress-feet with regular time intervals, we consider the alternative that languages exhibit contrastive rhythm subsisting merely in the alternation of stronger and weaker elements. This is initially plausible, particularly for languages with a steep 'prominence gradient', i.e. a large disparity between stronger and weaker elements; but we point out that alternation is poorly achieved even by a 'stress-timed' language such as English, and, historically, languages have conspicuously failed to adopt simple phonological remedies that would ensure alternation. Languages seem more concerned to allow 'syntagmatic contrast' between successive units and to use durational effects to support linguistic functions than to facilitate rhythm. Furthermore, some languages (e.g. Tamil, Korean) lack the lexical prominence which would most straightforwardly underpin prominence of alternation. We conclude that speech is not incontestibly rhythmic, and may even be antirhythmic. However, its linguistic structure and patterning allow the metaphorical extension of rhythm in varying degrees and in different ways depending on the language, and it is this analogical process which allows speech to be matched to external rhythms.

show abstract

Section: Rhythm Versus Linguistic Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

Nolan

Jeon

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, their model ought to be seen as handling the production and perception parameters against which an optimal result of language evolution can be measured. Being a dynamical systems analysis, the COM focuses on the ongoing process of speaking and communicative interaction -a fact also acknowledged by Windmann et al (2015). Rather than incorporating a set of target durations as parameters, the COM uses parameters connected with the rates at which various speech processes unfold and how these processes are coordinated (synchronized).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on Speech Timing: Coupled Oscillator Modeling of Polish and Finnish

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This stud y was ai med at analyzing empirical duration data for Polish spoken at different tempos using an updated version of the Coupled Oscillator Model of speech timing and rhythm variability (O'Dell and Nieminen, 1999, 2009). We use Bayesian inference on parameters relating to speech rate to investigate how tempo affects timing in Polish. The model parameters found are then compared with parameters obtained for equivalent material in Finnish to shed light on which of the effects represent general speech rate mechanisms and which are specific to Polish. We discuss the model and its predictions in the context of current perspectives on speech timing.

show abstract

“…Although this model provides a framework for modeling the influence of prosodic structure on correlated spatial and durational characteristics, it doesn't provide a way of determining what the syllable pulse heights and apex angles (and hence the syllable durations) should be for a given context. Šimko (2009), Šimko andCummins's (2010, 2011), and Windmann's (2016) approaches are of note in this regard, because they propose a principled cost-minimization mechanism for determining durational properties of speech, based on Optimal Control Theory. Šimko and Cummins' Embodied Task Dynamics model is a development of the Task Dynamics model used in AP/TD, in which the articulators are assigned masses, and optimization is used to determine model parameter values.…”

Section: Different Ways Of Modeling Effects Of Prosodic Structure On mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The speech-ready position is assumed to be "an average constellation with regard to the entire set of mastered gestures" (Šimko et al, 2014, p. 133). 6 Windmann et al (2015) and Windmann (2016) show how this same general approach, i.e., minimizing costs of effort, (mis)-parsing and time, can be used to model durational effects of prominence (phrasal prominence, lexical prominence, and their interaction) and polysyllabic shortening, as well as interactions with speaking rate, as measured from the acoustic signal.…”

Section: Different Ways Of Modeling Effects Of Prosodic Structure On mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), with movement costs. See e.g., Šimko and Cummins (2010, 2011), Windmann et al (2015, and Windmann (2016) for examples of ways that Optimal Control Theory approaches can be used to predict systematic timing patterns in speech. However, if these approaches are to be taken as theories of speech production, they present their own challenges; for example, they require extensive computation every time an utterance is planned.…”

Section: Why the Findings Point Toward A 3-component Model Based On Smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Timing Evidence for Symbolic Phonological Representations and Phonology-Extrinsic Timing in Speech Production

Turk

Shattuck‐Hufnagel

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goals of this paper are (1) to discuss the key features of existing articulatory models of speech production that govern their approaches to timing, along with advantages and disadvantages of each, and (2) to evaluate these features in terms of several pieces of evidence from both the speech and nonspeech motor control literature. This evidence includes greater timing precision at movement endpoints compared to other parts of movements, suggesting the separate control of the timing of movement endpoints compared to other parts of movement. This endpoint timing precision challenges models in which all parts of a movement trajectory are controlled by the same equation of motion, but supports models in which (a) abstract, symbolic phonological representations map onto spatial and temporal characteristics of the part(s) of movement most closely related to the goal of producing a planned set of acoustic cues to signal the phonological contrast (often the endpoint), (b) movements are coordinated primarily based on the goal-related part of movement, and (c) speakers give priority to the accurate implementation of the part(s) of movement most closely related to the phonological goals. In addition, this paper presents three types of evidence for phonology-extrinsic timing, suggesting that surface duration requirements are represented during speech production. Phonology-extrinsic timing is also supported by greater timing variability for repetitions of longer intervals, assumed to be due to noise in a general-purpose (and phonology-extrinsic) timekeeping process. The evidence appears to be incompatible with models that have a unified Phonology/Phonetics Component, that do not represent the surface timing of phonetic events, and do not represent, specify and track timing by general-purpose timekeeping mechanisms. Taken together, this evidence supports an alternative approach to modeling speech production that is based on symbolic phonological representations and generalpurpose, phonology-extrinsic, timekeeping mechanisms, rather than on spatio-temporal phonological representations and phonology-specific timing mechanisms. Thus, the evidence suggests that models in that alternative framework should be developed, so they can be tested with the same rigor as have models based on spatio-temporal phonological representations with phonology-intrinsic timing.

show abstract

Optimization-based modeling of speech timing

Cited by 13 publications

References 76 publications

Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

Perspectives on Speech Timing: Coupled Oscillator Modeling of Polish and Finnish

Timing Evidence for Symbolic Phonological Representations and Phonology-Extrinsic Timing in Speech Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About