Using spectral moments as a speaker specific feature in nasals and fricatives

Schindler, Carola; Draxler, Christoph

doi:10.21437/interspeech.2013-639

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a trained-to-familiar speaker recognition experiment, Drozdova et al (2017) found that listener performance was positively affected by the presence of vowels and nasals. These findings roughly correspond to findings from speech acoustics on which speech sounds contain most speaker-dependent information (Van den Heuvel, 1996;Kavanagh, 2012;Schindler & Draxler, 2013, and discussion in section 1.1).…”

Section: Speaker Discrimination By Linguistic Content and Contextsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…read pseudo-words, showed that the vowel [a] was the most speaker-dependent segment and that plosives, such as [p, d] contained the least speaker information. The speaker-discriminating potential of a large set of German phonemes was studied by Schindler and Draxler (2013), who found that some consonants, that is [s, n, m, f], contained more speaker-dependent information than most of the vowels. As in Dutch (see Van den Heuvel, 1996), the vowel [aː] was found to contain more speaker-dependent information than [i, u] (Schindler & Draxler, 2013).…”

Section: Acoustic-phonetic Speaker-dependent Information In Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The speaker-discriminating potential of a large set of German phonemes was studied by Schindler and Draxler (2013), who found that some consonants, that is [s, n, m, f], contained more speaker-dependent information than most of the vowels. As in Dutch (see Van den Heuvel, 1996), the vowel [aː] was found to contain more speaker-dependent information than [i, u] (Schindler & Draxler, 2013). In Czech, the vowel [iː] was found to pattern more with [aː] than [u] (Fejlová et al, 2013).…”

Section: Acoustic-phonetic Speaker-dependent Information In Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The word contexts [ɦ_k] and [v_t] were selected so that the speaker information contained by the different onset and offset consonants was estimated to be low and roughly comparable. Schindler and Draxler (2013) showed that the ratio of between-to-within speaker variation was quite low for [v] and [h] sampled from spontaneous German speech, with perhaps a small advantage for [v]. Moreover, according to Van den Heuvel (1996) Dutch stop consonants are expected to contribute relatively low speaker information.…”

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Speaker discrimination as a function of vowel realization: does focus affect perception?

Heeren

Voeten

Marks

2022

DuJAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech sounds are influenced by their linguistic position in the syllable or sentence. Because of acoustic-phonetic differences between different speech sounds, sounds vary in the amount of speaker information they contain. However, do spectral and durational differences between realizations of the same sound that were sampled from different linguistic positions also impact speaker information? We investigated speaker discrimination in [−focus] versus [+focus] word realizations. Twenty-one Dutch listeners participated in a same-different task, using stimuli varying in focus, vowel ([aː], [u]), and word context ([ɦ_k], [v_t]), spoken by 11 different speakers. Results showed that an effect of focus on speaker-dependent information was present, but limited to words containing [u]. Moreover, performance on [u] words was influenced by (interactions of) word context and trial type (same-vs. different-speaker). Context-dependent changes in a speech sound’s acoustics may affect its speaker-dependent information, albeit under specific conditions only.

show abstract

Section: Speaker Discrimination By Linguistic Content and Contextsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Acoustic-phonetic Speaker-dependent Information In Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acoustic-phonetic Speaker-dependent Information In Segmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Speaker discrimination as a function of vowel realization: does focus affect perception?

Heeren

Voeten

Marks

2022

DuJAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This work showed that out of these three monophthongs, the inherently long /aː/ contained the most speaker-dependent information. A more recent study on spontaneous speech from a closely-related language, German, confirmed that /aː/ may be considered a relatively speaker-specific vowel (Schindler and Draxler 2013). Neither study, however, included dynamic formant representations.…”

Section: The Diphthongal and Monophthongal Vowels Under Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

contribution of dynamic versus static formant information in conversational speech

Heeren

2020

IJSLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relative contributions of static and dynamic formant representations to speaker-specificity were investigated in conversational speech and in two vowels varying in inherent spectral change. Using polynomial fits, the contribution of dynamic formant coefficients to speaker-specificity relative to that of the formant intercept was investigated in the diphthongal vowel [ei] taken from English and Dutch conversational speech. The [ei] tokens were sampled from various linguistic contexts and analysed in an LR approach. Results show that formant dynamics contain speaker-specific information in conversational speech even though the high contextual variation seems to reduce its effect relative to that reported by earlier work. Vowels differ in inherent dynamicity and therefore, the added value of dynamic formant information to speaker-specificity was also compared between vowels differing in inherent spectral change. Using Dutch data, the contribution of formant dynamics to speaker-specificity was compared between [ei] and [a?] tokens produced by the same speakers. Formant dynamics in conversational speech only contributed to speaker-specificity in the diphthong [ei], not in the monophthong [a?].

show abstract