How should a speech recognizer work?

Cognitive Science

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 867-918

  Scharenborg, Odette ^a,b   Norris, Dennis ^c   ten Bosch, Louis ^a   McQueen, James M ^d  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit ^*  (Netherlands)

^c MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Automatic speech recognition; Computational modeling; Human speech recognition; Spoken word recognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645107709     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_37     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken-word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419-439.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3. Andruski, J. E., Blumstein, S. E., & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163-187.
4. Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C., & Altmann, G. T. M. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception and Psychophysics, 44, 395-408.
5. Bouwman, G., Boves, L., & Koolwaaij, J., (2000). Weighting phone confidence measures for automatic speech recognition. In Proceedings of the COST249 Workshop on Voice Operated Telecom Services (pp. 59-62). Ghent, Belgium.
6. Burnage, G. (1990). CELEX: A guide for users. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: CELEX.
7. Church, K. (1987). Phonological parsing and lexical retrieval. Cognition, 25, 53-69.
8. Cluff, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: Retroactive effects on multiple activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 551-563.
9. Cucchiarini, C., Binnenpoorte, D, & Goddijn, S. M. A. (2001). Phonetic transcriptions in the Spoken Dutch Corpus: How to combine efficiency and good transcription quality. In Proceedings of Eurospeech (pp. 1679-1682). Aalborg, Denmark: Kommunik Grafiske Løninger A/S.
10. Cutler, A., Demuth, K., & McQueen, J. M. (2002). Universality versus language-specificity in listening to running speech. Psychological Science, 13, 258-262.
11. Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121.
12. Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Gaskell, M. G. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden-path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 218-244.
13. Demuynck, K., Laureys, T., Van Compernolle, D., & Van hamme, H. (2003). FlaVoR: A flexible architecture for LVCSR. In Proceedings of Eurospeech (pp. 1973-1976). Rundle Mall, Australia: Casual Productions.
14. Elman, J. L., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Exploiting lawful variability in the speech wave. In J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatt (Eds.), Invariance and variability of speech processes (pp. 360-380). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Furui, S. (1996). An overview of speaker recognition technology. In C.-H. Lee, F. K. Soong, & K. K. Paliwal (Eds.), Automatic speech and speaker technology (pp. 31-56). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
16. Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89, 105-132.
17. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656.
18. Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
19. Gow, D. W., Jr. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 163-179.
20. Gow, D. W., & Gordon, P. C. (1995). Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 344-359.
21. Hazen, T. J. (2000). A comparison of novel techniques for rapid speaker adaptation. Speech Communication, 31, 15-33.
22. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428.
23. Hirose, K., Minematsu, N., Hashimoto, Y., & Iwano, K. (2001). Continuous speech recognition of Japanese using prosodic word boundaries detected by mora transition modeling of fundamental frequency contours. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Prosody in Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (pp. 61-66). Red Bank, NJ.
24. Höge, H., Draxler, C., van den Heuvel, H., Johansen, F. T., Sanders E., & Tropf, H. S. (1999). Speechdat multilingual speech databases for teleservices: Across the finish line. In Proceedings of Eurospeech (pp. 2699-2702). Boun, Germany: ESCA.
25. Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989). Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks, 2, 359-366.
26. Jelinek, F. (1997). Statistical methods for speech recognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Juang, B. H., & Furui, S. (Eds.). (2000). Spoken language processing [Special issue]. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(8).
28. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194.
29. Klatt, D. H. (1979). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 279-312.
30. Klatt, D. H. (1989). Review of selected models of speech perception. In W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 169-226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Lesser, V. R., Fennell, R. D., Erman, L. D., & Reddy, D. R. (1975). Organization of the hearsay-II: Speech understanding system. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 23, 11-23.
32. Luce, P. A. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 39, 155-158.
33. Luce, P. A., Goldinger, S. D., Auer, E. T., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 615-625.
34. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36.
35. Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. Magnuson, J. S., McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2003). Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: The ghost of Christmash past. Cognitive Science, 27, 285-298.
37. Makhoul, J., Kubala, F., Leek, T., Liu, D., Nguyen, L., Schwartz, R., et al. (2000). Speech and language technologies for audio indexing and retrieval [Special Issue]. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(8).
38. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
39. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653-675.
40. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
41. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: In Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word-recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.
43. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
44. McQueen, J. M. (1998). Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 21-46.
45. McQueen, J. M. (2003). The ghost of Christmas future: Didn't Scrooge learn to be good? Commentary on Magnuson, McMurray, Tanenhaus and Astin (2003). Cognitive Science, 27, 795-799.
46. McQueen, J. M. (2005). Speech perception. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), The handbook of cognition (pp. 255-275). London: Sage.
47. McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., Briscoe, T., & Norris, D. (1995). Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 309-331.
48. McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (2005). The mental lexicon is not episodic: A belated reply to Goldinger (1998). Manuscript in preparation.
49. McQueen, J. M., Dahan, D., & Cutler, A. (2003). Continuity and gradedness in speech processing. In A. S. Meyer & N. O. Schiller (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 39-78). Berlin: Mouton.
50. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 621-638.
51. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1999). Lexical influence in phonetic decision-making: Evidence from subcategorical mismatches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1363-1389.
52. Meddis, R., & Hewitt, M. J. (1991). Virtual pitch and phase sensitivity of a computer model of the auditory periphery: I. Pitch identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 2866-2882.
53. Moore, R. K., & Cutler, A. (2001). Constraints on theories of human vs. machine recognition of speech. In R. Smits, J. Kingston, T. M. Nearey, & R. Zondervan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Speech Recognition as Pattern Classification (pp. 145-150). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: MPI for Psycholinguistics.
54. Ney, H., & Aubert, X. (1996). Dynamic programming search: From digit strings to large vocabulary word graphs. In C.-H. Lee, F. K. Soong, & K. K. Paliwal (Eds.), Automatic speech and speaker recognition (pp. 385-413). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
55. Norris, D. (1982). Autonomous processes in comprehension: A reply to Marslen-Wilson and Tyler. Cognition, 11, 97-101.
56. Norris, D. (1986). Word recognition: Context effects without priming. Cognition, 22, 93-136.
57. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
58. Norris, D. (2005). How do computational models help us develop better theories? In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 331-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
59. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1209-1228.
60. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299-325.
61. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204-238.
62. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 191-243.
63. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Smits, R. (2004). Shortlist II: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Manuscript in preparation.
64. Patterson, R. D., Allerhand, M., & Giguere, C. (1995). Time-domain modelling of peripheral auditory processing: A modular architecture and a software platform. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 1890-1894.
65. Paul, D. B. (1992). An efficient A* stack decoder algorithm for continuous speech recognition with a stochastic language model. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (pp. 25-28).
66. Perkell, J. S., & Klatt, D. H. (Eds.). (1986). Invariance and variability of speech processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
67. Pitt, M. A., & McQueen, J. M. (1998). Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 347-370.
68. Rabiner, L. & Juang, B.-H. (1993). Fundamentals of speech processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
69. Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51-89.
70. Samuel, A. G. (2001). Knowing a word affects the fundamental perception of the sounds within it. Psychological Science, 12, 348-351.
71. Samuel, A. G., & Pitt, M. A. (2003). Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 416-434.
72. Scharenborg, O., & Boves, L. (2002). Pronunciation variation modelling in a model of human word recognition. In Proceedings of Workshop on Pronunciation Modeling and Lexicon Adaptation (pp. 65-70). Estes Park, CO.
73. Scharenborg, O., McQueen, J. M., ten Bosch, L., & Norris, D. (2003). Modelling human speech recognition using automatic speech recognition paradigms in SpeM. In Proceedings of Eurospeech (pp. 2097-2100). Rundle Mall, Australia: Casual Productions.
74. Scharenborg O., ten Bosch, L., & Boves, L. (2003a). "Early recognition" of words in continuous speech. In Proceedings of the IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (pp. 61-66). Rundle Mall, Australia: Casual Productions.
75. Scharenborg O., ten Bosch, L., & Boves, L. (2003b). Recognising "real-life" speech with SpeM: A speech-based computational model of human speech recognition. In Proceedings of Eurospeech (pp. 2285-2288). Rundle Mall, Australia: Casual Productions.
76. Scharenborg, O., ten Bosch, L., Boves, L., & Norris, D. (2003). Bridging automatic speech recognition and psycholinguistics: Extending Shortlist to an end-to-end model of human speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(6), 3032-3035.
77. Spinelli, E., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Processing resyllabified words in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 233-254.
78. Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1872-1891.
79. Sturm, J., Kamperman, H., Boves, L., & den Os, E. (2000). Impact of speaking style and speaking task on acoustic models. In Proceedings of ICSLP (pp. 361-364). Beijing, China: China Military Friendship Publish.
80. Tabossi, P., Burani, C., & Scott, D. (1995). Word identification in fluent speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 440-467.
81. Tabossi, P., Collina, S., Mazzetti, M., & Zoppello, M. (2000). Syllables in the processing of spoken Italian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 758-775.
82. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 9, 325-329.
83. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374-408.
84. Vroomen, J., & de Gelder, B. (1995). Metrical segmentation and lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 98-108.
85. Waibel, A., Geutner, P., Mayfield Tomokiyo, L., Schultz, A., & Woszczyna, M. (2000). Multilinguality in speech and spoken language systems [Special issue]. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(8).
86. Wessel, F., Schlueter, R., Macherey, K., & Ney, H. (2001). Confidence measures for large vocabulary continuous speech recognition. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 9, 288-298.
87. Woodland, P. C. (2001). Speaker adaptation for continuous density HMMs: A review. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Adaptation Methods for Speech Recognition (pp. 11-19). Sophia-Antipolis, France.
88. Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32, 25-64.