105,883 research outputs found
Towards Understanding Spontaneous Speech: Word Accuracy vs. Concept Accuracy
In this paper we describe an approach to automatic evaluation of both the
speech recognition and understanding capabilities of a spoken dialogue system
for train time table information. We use word accuracy for recognition and
concept accuracy for understanding performance judgement. Both measures are
calculated by comparing these modules' output with a correct reference answer.
We report evaluation results for a spontaneous speech corpus with about 10000
utterances. We observed a nearly linear relationship between word accuracy and
concept accuracy.Comment: 4 pages PS, Latex2e source importing 2 eps figures, uses icslp.cls,
caption.sty, psfig.sty; to appear in the Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 96
USE OF COHESIVE FEATURES IN ESL STUDENTSâ E-MAIL AND WORD-PROCESSED TEXTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
As the computer is rapidly finding its way into classrooms around the world at all levels of
education,teachers are trying to find effective ways to integrate this technology into their
curriculum. While the effectiveness of using word processing in the teaching of writing is
acknowledged, there is still no general consensus on how to use, or even whether to use,
asynchronous electronic mail, leaving a number of questions unanswered. For example,
when given comparable academic tasks, do students produce similar texts in the two media
or do they write differently according to the medium used? In order to determine whether the
medium has an effect on the language that the students produce, a discourse analysis of
comparable word processed and e-mail writing assignments was carried out, focusing on
twelve cohesive features and on text length. The students involved in the study were enrolled
in a higher-intermediate English as a Foreign Language course at a university in the United
States. The results indicate that two of the cohesive features, as well as text length,
differentiated e-mail and word-processed writing. It was also found that, while they tended
to write shorter texts in both media, Arab students tended to use more of some of the
cohesive features than Asian students
Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish
Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellÀ (in front of) and jÀljessÀ (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003).
When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellÀ (in front of) and jÀljessÀ (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected.
We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakersâ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers.
All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion.
We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneuxâs question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo
DeepASL: Enabling Ubiquitous and Non-Intrusive Word and Sentence-Level Sign Language Translation
There is an undeniable communication barrier between deaf people and people
with normal hearing ability. Although innovations in sign language translation
technology aim to tear down this communication barrier, the majority of
existing sign language translation systems are either intrusive or constrained
by resolution or ambient lighting conditions. Moreover, these existing systems
can only perform single-sign ASL translation rather than sentence-level
translation, making them much less useful in daily-life communication
scenarios. In this work, we fill this critical gap by presenting DeepASL, a
transformative deep learning-based sign language translation technology that
enables ubiquitous and non-intrusive American Sign Language (ASL) translation
at both word and sentence levels. DeepASL uses infrared light as its sensing
mechanism to non-intrusively capture the ASL signs. It incorporates a novel
hierarchical bidirectional deep recurrent neural network (HB-RNN) and a
probabilistic framework based on Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC)
for word-level and sentence-level ASL translation respectively. To evaluate its
performance, we have collected 7,306 samples from 11 participants, covering 56
commonly used ASL words and 100 ASL sentences. DeepASL achieves an average
94.5% word-level translation accuracy and an average 8.2% word error rate on
translating unseen ASL sentences. Given its promising performance, we believe
DeepASL represents a significant step towards breaking the communication
barrier between deaf people and hearing majority, and thus has the significant
potential to fundamentally change deaf people's lives
- âŠ