PURR - A method for prosody evaluation and investigation

Computer Speech and Language

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 437-451

  Sonntag, Gerit P ^a   Portele, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH RECOGNITION;

PROSODY UNVEILING THROUGH RESTRICTED REPRESENTATION (PURR);

SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

EID: 0032181249     PISSN: 08852308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/csla.1998.0107     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Benoît, C., Emerard, F., Schnabel, B. & Tseva, A. (1991). Quality comparisons of prosodic and of acoustic components of various synthesisers. In Proceedings of Eurospeech 2, European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Genova, pp. 875-878.
2. Bladon, A. (1990). Evaluating the prosody of text-to-speech synthesizers. In Speech Technology, New York, pp. 215-220.
3. CCITT (1989) Blue Book 5, Telephone Transmission Quality, Series P Recommendations, IX. Plenary Assembly, Geneva, Recommendation P.50, pp. 87-98.
4. Fant, G., Liljencrants, J. & Lin, Q. (1985). A four-parameter model of glottal flow. STL-QPSR 4, KTH, Stockholm, 1-13.
5. Fourcin, A. J., Harland, G., Barry, W. & Hazan, V. (eds) 1989). Speech Input and Output Assessment, Ellis Horwood Ltd, Chichester.
6. Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1, 126-152.
7. Guaitella, I. & Santi, S. (1992). The punctuation and perception of read and spontaneous prosody: an application to speech synthesis. In Talking Machines: Theories, Models and Designs (G. Bailly, C. Benoît & T. Sawallis, eds), Elsevier, North Holland, pp. 351-366.
8. Heuft, B. (1996). Synthesizing prosody: a prominence based approach. In Proceedings of ICSLP, Philadelphia, pp. 1361-1364.
9. Klasmeyer, G. (1997). The perceptual importance of selected voice quality parameters. In Proceedings of ICASSP 3, Munich, pp. 1615-1618.
10. Kreimann, J. (1982). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries in natural conversation. Journal of Phonetics 10, 163-175.
11. Lehiste, I. & Wang, W. S-Y. (1976). Perception of sentence boundaries with and without semantic information. In Phonologica 19 (W. Dressler & O. Pfeiffer, eds) pp. 277-283.
12. Lienert, G. A. & Raatz, U. (1994). Testaufbau und Testanalyse, 5th edition, Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim.
13. Mersdorf, J. (1996). Ein Hörversuch zur perzeptiven Unterscheidbarkeit von Sprechern bei ausschließlich intonatorischer Information. In Fortschritte der Akustik - DAGA, DEGA e.V. Bonn, pp. 482-483.
14. Moulines, E. & Charpentier, F. (1990). Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication 9, 453-467.
15. Nicolas, P. & Roméas, P. (1993). Evaluation of prosody in the French version of a multilingual text-to-speech synthesis: neutralising segmental information in preliminary tests. In Proceedings of Eurospeech, European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Berlin, pp. 211-214.
16. Ohala, J. J. & Gilbert, J. B. (1979) Listeners' ability to identify languages by their prosody. In Problèmes de Prosodie. Studia Phonetica 18 (P. Léon & M. Rossi, eds), pp. 123-131.
17. Pagel, V., Carbonell, N. & Laprie, Y. (1996). A new method for speech delexicalization, and its application to the perception of French prosody. In Proceedings of ICSLP, FrA2L1.6, Philadelphia.
18. Pavlovic, C. V. (1990). Use of the magnitude estimation technique for assessing the performance of text-to-speech synthesis systems. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 87(1), 373-382.
19. de Pijper, J. R. & Sandermann, A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96(4), 2037-2047.
20. Portele, T. (1997). Perceptual evidence for accent categories: preliminaries and first results. In Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications (A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou & G. Carayannis, eds), Proceedings of ESCA, ESCA and University of Athens, Athens, pp. 271-274.
21. Portele, T. & Heuft, B. (1995). Two kinds of stress perception. In Proceedings of ICPhS 1, Stockholm, pp. 126-129.
22. Portele, T., Reuter, A. & Heuft, B. (1996). Prosody generation with a neural network. In Proceedings of WCNN, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, San Diego, pp. 41-44.
23. Portele, T., Heuft, B., Höfer, F., Meyer, H. & Hess, W. (1994). A new high quality speech synthesis system for German. In Progress and Prospects of Speech Research and Technology (H. Niemann, R. de Mori & G. Hannrieder, eds) CRIM/FORWISS Workshop, Munich, pp. 274-277.
24. Schaffer, D. (1984). The role of intonation as a cue to topic management in conversation. Journal of Phonetics 12 327-344.
25. Sonntag, G. P. (1996a). Untersuchung zur perzeptiven Unterscheidung prosodischer Phrasen. In ITG Fachtagung Sprachkommunikation, VDE-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 121-124.
26. Sonntag, G. P. (1996b). Klassifikation syntaktischer Strukturen aufgrund rein prosodischer Information. In Fortschritte der Akustik - DAGA, DEGA e.V., Bonn, pp. 480-481.
27. Sonntag, G. P. & Portele, T. (1997). Looking for the presence of linguistic concepts in the prosody of spoken utterances. In Proceedings of the CTS workshop (ACL) (K. Alter, H. Pirker & W. Finkler, eds) Association for Computational Linguistics, Madrid, pp. 57-63.
28. Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64, 153-181.
29. von Essen, O. (1956). Grundzüge der hochdeutschen Satzintonation, Ratingen, Düsseldorf.