MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547010527 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726614

Nonintrusive speech quality estimation based on Perceptual Linear Prediction

2016· article· en· W2547010527 on OpenAlexaff
Haniyeh Salehi, Vijay Parsa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEstimationQuality (philosophy)PerceptionSpeech recognitionLinear predictive codingLinear predictionArtificial intelligenceSpeech processingEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective measures of speech quality are attractive because they facilitate performance assessment of hearing aids (HAs) without the need for human listeners. Objective speech quality predictions are usually performed intrusively, wherein the “closeness” between the reference and HA output speech recordings is quantified. In this paper, we focus on nonintrusive estimation of HA speech quality based on Perceptual Linear Prediction (PLP) modeling approach. In PLP, perceptual phenomena such as non-uniform filter bank analysis and nonlinear mapping between sound intensity and its perceived loudness are incorporated into the linear prediction feature extraction process. In this work, PLP and PLP-based cepstral coefficients were computed from HA speech recordings and their statistical properties were utilized as features for speech quality estimation. A custom database of HA speech recordings obtained in different noisy and reverberant environments was used to investigate the predictive performance of these individual features. In addition, regression functions that linearly combined the features and mapped to the predicted quality scores, were derived and validated. Experimental results show that the proposed nonintrusive speech quality estimates correlate well with subjective ratings of speech quality by hearing impaired listeners.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207