6,578 research outputs found
Blind Normalization of Speech From Different Channels
We show how to construct a channel-independent representation of speech that
has propagated through a noisy reverberant channel. This is done by blindly
rescaling the cepstral time series by a non-linear function, with the form of
this scale function being determined by previously encountered cepstra from
that channel. The rescaled form of the time series is an invariant property of
it in the following sense: it is unaffected if the time series is transformed
by any time-independent invertible distortion. Because a linear channel with
stationary noise and impulse response transforms cepstra in this way, the new
technique can be used to remove the channel dependence of a cepstral time
series. In experiments, the method achieved greater channel-independence than
cepstral mean normalization, and it was comparable to the combination of
cepstral mean normalization and spectral subtraction, despite the fact that no
measurements of channel noise or reverberations were required (unlike spectral
subtraction).Comment: 25 pages, 7 figure
Speaker verification using sequence discriminant support vector machines
This paper presents a text-independent speaker verification system using support vector machines (SVMs) with score-space kernels. Score-space kernels generalize Fisher kernels and are based on underlying generative models such as Gaussian mixture models (GMMs). This approach provides direct discrimination between whole sequences, in contrast with the frame-level approaches at the heart of most current systems. The resultant SVMs have a very high dimensionality since it is related to the number of parameters in the underlying generative model. To address problems that arise in the resultant optimization we introduce a technique called spherical normalization that preconditions the Hessian matrix. We have performed speaker verification experiments using the PolyVar database. The SVM system presented here reduces the relative error rates by 34% compared to a GMM likelihood ratio system
- ā¦