Synthesis of fast speech with interpolation of adapted HSMMs and its evaluation by blind and sighted listeners

In this paper we evaluate a method for generating synthetic speech at high speaking rates based on the interpolation of hidden semi-Markov models (HSMMs) trained on speech data recorded at normal and fast speaking rates. The subjective evaluation was carried out with both blind listeners, who are used to very fast speaking rates, and sighted listeners. We show that we can achieve a better intelligibility rate and higher voice quality with this method compared to standard HSMM-based duration modeling. We also evaluate duration modeling with the interpolation of all the acoustic features including not only duration but also spectral and F0 models. An analysis of the mean squared error (MSE) of standard HSMM-based duration modeling for fast speech identifies problematic linguistic contexts for duration modeling

Voluntary Clawback Adoption and the Use of Financial Measures in CFO Bonus Plans

Firms trade-off CFOs’ fiduciary duties against their decision-making duties when designing CFO bonus plans. Decreasing bonus incentives tied to financial measures benefits CFOs’ fiduciary responsibilities at the expense of motivating their decision making duties. As prior research indicates that clawbacks increase personal misreporting costs through the loss of previously awarded compensation, we examine whether clawbacks allow firms to increase incentives in CFO bonus contracts. Based on a sample of U.S. firms between 2007 and 2013, we find that clawbacks are associated with greater CFO bonus incentives. We also find the increase in incentives to be more pronounced for CFOs relative to other executives. Our results are moderated by firms’ susceptibility to misreporting. The relation between clawbacks and incentives is weaker when firms experienced internal control deficiencies, have larger abnormal accruals, when CFOs are more vulnerable to pressure from CEOs, and when audit committees have less financial expertise and prestige

Anthropologie an der Universität Wien

Bis 1930 gab es an der Universität Wien ein gemeinsames anthropologisch-ethnographisches Institut. Nach zahlreichen universitätsorganisatorischen Umstrukturierungen haben sich zwei voneinander unabhängige anthropologische Studienrichtungen etabliert: Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie an der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften und Anthropologie (als Studienzweig der Biologie) an der Fakultät für Lebenswissenschaften. Wissen Studierende der Kultur- und Sozialanthropologie bzw. jene der Anthropologie über die jeweils andere Studienrichtung Bescheid? Wie stehen die Lehrenden der jeweils anderen anthropologischen Studienrichtung? Gibt es Interesse an einer Zusammenarbeit oder besteht bereits zumindest ein stetiger Austausch in bestimmten Bereichen? Diese und noch andere Fragen wurden mittels Fragebogen an 168 Studierende sowie 22 qualitativer Interviews mit Lehrenden und Studierenden beider Richtungen zu beantworten versucht. Die Ergebnisse machen vor allem eines deutlich: Studierende wissen sehr wenig über die jeweils andere Studienrichtung Bescheid. Einige Lehrende wären einer gezielteren Vernetzung der beiden Disziplinen gegenüber zwar keineswegs abgeneigt, aktuell besteht aber nur sehr wenig Austausch. Ist diese Distanz zwischen den beiden Disziplinen berechtigt oder wird sie uns auf lange Sicht hin nur blockieren? Ist eine Differenzierung in Natur-, Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften zukunftsträchtig? Wenn man „den Menschen“ verstehen will, darf man ihn dann entweder als reines „Naturwesen“ oder als reines „Kulturwesen“ betrachten? Diese und ähnliche Fragestellungen können einem interdisziplinären anthropologischen Forschungsansatz an der Universität Wien als Basis dienen, um einem weiteren Auseinanderdriften der Wissenschaften und damit verbundenen Vorurteilen entgegenzuwirken und Raum für echte interdisziplinäre Forschung zu schaffen.Until 1930, there was only one Anthropologic-Ethnographic Department at the University of Vienna (Austria). After a number of substantial changes concerning the academic and organisational structure of the University of Vienna, however, two separate anthropological departments were established: “Cultural and Social Anthropology” at the Faculty of Social Sciences and “Anthropology” (which is one of the seven branches of Biology) at the Faculty of Life Sciences. Do students know about the respective “other” anthropological sub-discipline? What do teachers think about the “other” anthropological discipline? Are they interested at all in a cooperation of the subfields, or does such collaboration already exist? Answers to these and other questions are based on the evaluation of 168 questionnaires completed by students and 22 interviews with students and teachers of both subfields. The results have made some things clear: Students know very little about the other disciplines. Some teachers are not opposed to stronger bonds between the two subfields, although there is only little cooperation at the moment. Is the distance between Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities justified or will it hamper academic research in the future? Does it really make sense to look at the “human being” from either a strictly biological or a strictly social / cultural perspective only, if we truly want to understand the “human being”? These and similar questions could serve as a basis for an interdisciplinary anthropological approach at the University of Vienna, and they might be helpful to prevent the disciplines from drifting (further) apart, and might help to end bias and prejudice while at the same time offering an opportunity for ‘real’ interdisciplinary research

Siebenbürgen und Transkarpatien: Deutsch als Minderheitensprache in Mitteleuropa vor dem Hintergrund von Migration und Konfession

Siebenbürgen und Transkarpatien: Deutsch als Minderheitensprachein Mitteleuropa vor dem Hintergrund von Migrationund Konfessio

Reply: Noisy but not placebo : defining metrics for effects of neurofeedback

Y777-B24P21154-B18(VLID)253270