1995 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing
DOI: 10.1109/icassp.1995.479608
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study of mel cepstra and EIH for phone classification under adverse conditions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it was reported that the contribution of dynamic features of the EIH's to the performance improvements is much smaller than that of mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) [38]. This may be due to the fact that the length of the time-window is channel dependent in the EIH's, i.e., it varies inversely with the characteristic frequency of the channel.…”
Section: Incorporation Of Dynamic Features and Comparison With Sevmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it was reported that the contribution of dynamic features of the EIH's to the performance improvements is much smaller than that of mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) [38]. This may be due to the fact that the length of the time-window is channel dependent in the EIH's, i.e., it varies inversely with the characteristic frequency of the channel.…”
Section: Incorporation Of Dynamic Features and Comparison With Sevmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In those models, the auditory effects are emulated as accurately as possible according to the current understanding. Such trials have yielded systems that outperformed the MFCC, PLP and RASTA systems in speech recognition applications especially in the presence of noise and other adverse conditions [10], [17], [28]- [31], [39], [43], [50]. They, however, suffer from very slow processing that makes real-time software implementation, for the overall ASR system, difficult and uneconomic with the current state-of-the-art computation and storage powers [31].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5, is designed with conventional HMM's as a benchmark using MFCC and delta-MFCC features and being trained with five iterations of Baum-Welch (ML) algorithm. This HMM (ML) is comparable in performance with other similar classifiers (e.g., [25]), and gives 65.7% phone classification rate using five-mixture CI models (about the same as 66.2% reported in [25] with 32 mixtures). The second classifier, denoted by HMM 5 in Fig.…”
Section: Experiments and Model Evaluation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 66%