Interaction of Speech Coders and Atypical Speech II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated how standard speech coders, currently used in modern communication systems, affect the quality of the speech of persons who have common speech and voice disorders. Three standardized speech coders (GSM 6.10 RPE-LTP, FS1016 CELP, and FS1015 LPC) and two speech coders based on subband processing were evaluated for their performance. Coder effects were assessed by measuring the quality of speech samples both before and after processing by the speech coders. Speech quality was rated by 10 listeners with normal hearing on 28 different scales representing pitch and loudness changes, speech rate, laryngeal and resonatory dysfunction, and coder-induced distortions. Results showed that (a) nine scale items were consistently and reliably rated by the listeners; (b) all coders degraded speech quality on these nine scales, with the GSM and CELP coders providing the better quality speech; and (c) interactions between coders and individual voices did occur on several voice quality scales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".