Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP '98 (Cat. No.98CH36181
DOI: 10.1109/icassp.1998.674407
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Keyword verification considering the correlation of succeeding feature vectors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A search of the traditional ROC literature [Swets 1988;Egan 1975;Swets and Pickett 1982] shows no mention of this formulation. It does appear, without comment or justification in the wordspotting literature [James and Young 1994;Jeanrenaud et al 1994;Lippmann et al 1994;Junkawitsch et al 1998;Dharanipragada and Roukos 1998], where it is usually, but not always, referred to as a ROC curve. We speculated that false alarms per unit time might be a surrogate measure for percent false alarms under the assumption that spoken word rates are approximately constant (at least compared to Internet traffic rates) across many speakers or passages and we were concerned that there might be assumptions associated with the word-spotting usage that would not hold for intrusion detection.…”
Section: Errors Per Unit Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A search of the traditional ROC literature [Swets 1988;Egan 1975;Swets and Pickett 1982] shows no mention of this formulation. It does appear, without comment or justification in the wordspotting literature [James and Young 1994;Jeanrenaud et al 1994;Lippmann et al 1994;Junkawitsch et al 1998;Dharanipragada and Roukos 1998], where it is usually, but not always, referred to as a ROC curve. We speculated that false alarms per unit time might be a surrogate measure for percent false alarms under the assumption that spoken word rates are approximately constant (at least compared to Internet traffic rates) across many speakers or passages and we were concerned that there might be assumptions associated with the word-spotting usage that would not hold for intrusion detection.…”
Section: Errors Per Unit Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of research results have already been published, e.g. in language identification [8], multilingual recognition [2,3], speaker verification [16] and general acoustic-phonetic modelling and adaptation for different environments and tasks [4,5,9,10,11,12,14,15]. Apart from this, the SpeechDat databases also represent a valuable collection of dialects and speakers for corpus-based linguistic and phonetic studies [1,6,7,13].…”
Section: Ev a Luation O F Th E Use O F The Speech D A T Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%