2015 International Conference on Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT-2015] 2015
DOI: 10.1109/iccpct.2015.7159435
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of two different system's framework for text dependent speaker verification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Performance of the TD-SV model using MFCC and RMFCC features is measured in terms of EER. The point where false acceptance rate (FAR) and false rejection rate (FRR) intersect each other is the EER [7]. Based on the claim list, DTW scores are obtained by four cohort speaker method using MFCC and RMFCC features.…”
Section: F Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Performance of the TD-SV model using MFCC and RMFCC features is measured in terms of EER. The point where false acceptance rate (FAR) and false rejection rate (FRR) intersect each other is the EER [7]. Based on the claim list, DTW scores are obtained by four cohort speaker method using MFCC and RMFCC features.…”
Section: F Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different methodologies have been adopted for TD-SV systems, as can be seen from the literature. Several features like MFCC [1], [5], [7], [21], [22] pitch [8], linear prediction coefficients (LPC) [9], perpetual linear prediction coefficients (PLP) [9], [10] etc. are extracted from the speech signal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%