Does the content of speech influence its perceived sound quality?

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2002

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 1170-1176

  Raake, Alexander ^a  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES; ACOUSTIC VARIABLES MEASUREMENT; SOUND REPRODUCTION; SPEECH; SPEECH COMMUNICATION; USER INTERFACES;

CATEGORY RATINGS; LOW BIT RATE; SOUND QUALITY; SPEECH DATA; SPEECH MATERIALS; SPEECH QUALITY; TEXT MATERIALS; TRANSMISSION CHARACTERISTICS;

SPEECH TRANSMISSION;

EID: 85015219397     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Bappert, V. and J. Blauert, 1994. Auditory Quality Evaluation of Speech Coding Systems. Acta Acustica, 2:49-58.
2. BenoÎt, C, M. Grice, and V. Hazan, 1996. The SUS Test: A Method for the Assessment of Text-to- Speech Synthesis Intelligibility using Semantically Unpredictable Sentences. Speech Communication, 18 (4):381-392.
3. Gibbon, D., R. Moore, R. Winski, eds., 1997. Handbook of Standards and Resources for Spoken Language Systems. D-Berlin: De Gruyter.
4. Huggins, A., R. Nickerson, 1985. Speech quality evaluation using "phoneme-specific" sentences. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 77 (5):1896-1906.
5. IEC Publ. 268-13 (date unknown). Listening Test on Loudspeakers. International Electrotechnical Commission, CH-Geneva.
6. Institut de la Communication Parlée (ICP), F-Grenoble, 1994. Eurom 1 Multilingual Database; 40 blocks of 5 thematically linked sentences: http://www.icp.grenet.fr/.
7. ITU-T Recommendation G.712, 1992. Transmission Performance Characteristics of Pulse Code Modula tion. CH-Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.
8. ITU-T Recommendation P.56, 1993. Objective Measurement of Active Speech Level. CH-Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.
9. ITU-T Recommendation P.79, 1999. Calculation of Loudness Ratings for Telephone Sets. CH-Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.
10. ITU-T Recommendation P.800, 1996. Methods for Subjective Determination of Transmission Quality. CH-Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.
11. Jekosch, U., 2000. Sprache hören und beurteilen: Ein Ansatz zur Grundlegung der Sprachqualitätsbeurteilung. Habilitation thesis. D-Essen: University Essen.
12. Krebber, W., 1995. Sprachübertragungsqualität von Fernsprech-Handapparaten, Vol. 357. Series 10. DDüsseldorf: VDI-Verlag GmbH.
13. McGee, V.E., 1964. Semantic Components of the Quality of Processed Speech. J. of Speech and Hearing Res., 7:310-323.
14. Möller, S. and A. Raake, 2002. Telephone Speech Quality Prediction: Towards Network Planning and Monitoring Models for Modern Network Scenarios. Speech Communication, in press.
15. Möller, S., 2000. Assessment and Prediction of Speech Quality in Telecommunications. USA-Boston: Kluwer Academic Publ.
16. Nöth, W., 1990. Handbook of Semiotics. USABloomington: Indiana University Press.
17. Ogden, C. and I. Richards, 1923. The Meaning of Meaning. USA-New York: Harcourt.
18. Pascal, D. and M. Boyer, 1990. Multidimensional Perceptive Measurement of Quality: Comparative Performance of Two Methods. In: Proc. 13th Int. Symp. on Human Factors in Telecommunications, I-Turin, 519-520.
19. Peirce, C., 1986. Semiotische Schriften, vol. 1. DFrankfurt/Main: H. Suhrkamp.
20. Raake, A. (2000). Perceptual Dimensions of Speech Sound Quality in Modern Transmission Systems. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Spoken Language Processing. (ICSLP 2000), CHN-Beijing, 4:744-747.
21. Stickney, G. and P. Assmann, 2001. Acoustic and Linguistic Factors in the Perception of Bandpass-Filtered Speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 109 (3):1157-1165.