liverpool university
DESCRIPTION
Liverpool University. The Department. Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience Department of Psychology Liverpool University Overall Aim Understanding Human Information Processing. Expertise. Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA) Perception experiments Modelling Speech Perception - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Liverpool University
The Department
• Centre for Cognitive NeuroscienceDepartment of PsychologyLiverpool University
• Overall AimUnderstanding Human Information Processing
Expertise
• Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA)– Perception experiments – Modelling
• Speech Perception
• Audio-Visual Integration– Models of AV information fusion– Applying these models to ASA
Work at Liverpool
Task 1.3, active/passive speech perception. Research Question: Do human listeners actively
predict the time course of background noise to aid speech recognition?
Current state: Perceptual evidence for ‘predictive scene analysis’ : Elvira Perez will explain all
Planned work: Database of environmental noise to test computational models
Work at Liverpool
Task 1.4 Envelope Information & Binaural ProcResearch Question: What features do listeners use to
track a target speaker in the presence of competing signals? Patti Adank (Aug.03-July.04)
Current State: Tested the hypothesis that ‘jitter’ is a stream segregation or stream formation cue:
Tech report finalised in July 04
Work at LiverpoolTask 2.2 Reliability of auditory cues in multi-cue
scenarios Research Question: How are cues perceptually
integrated?Combination of experimentation and modelling
Current state: Experimental data and models on audio-visual motion signal integration (non Hoarse)
Ongoing work: MLE models for speech feature integration. Elvira
Planned work: Collaboration with Patras (John Worley) on location and pitch segregation cue integration
Work at Liverpool
Task 4.1: Informing speech recognition Research Question: How to apply data derived from perception experiments to machine learning?
Current State: Just starting to ‘predict’ environmental noises (using Aurora noises)Recording database of natural scenes for analysis and modelling. (with Sheffield)
… over to Elvira
Environmental Noise
• Two-pronged approach – Elvira: is perceptual evidence for active noise
modelling in listeners
– Georg (+ Sheffield): noise modelling based on database
Baseline Data
• Typical noise databases not very representative– Size severely limited (e.g. Aurora)– Unrealistsic scenarios (fighter jets, foundries)
• Database of environmental noise– Transport noises: A320-200, ICE, Saab 9-3, – Social Places: Departure lounges, Hotel Lobby, Pub– Private Journeys: urban walk, country walk– Buildings: offices, corridors– …
• Aim is to have about 10-20 mins of representative data for typical situations.
Recordings
• Soundman OKMII binaural microphones
• Sony D3 DAT recorder
• 48kHz stereo recordings
• Digital transfer to PC
mics
Analysis
• Previous work– Auditory filterbank (linear, Mel-Scale, 32 ch.)– Linear prediction
• Within channels
• Across channels
• Planned work– Aud filterbank– Non-linear prediction using Nnets
Using Envelope Informationfor ASA (Patti Adank)
• Background– Brungard & Darwin (resource allocation task?)
Two simultaneous sentences: track one • Segregation benefits from
– Pitch differences
– Speaker differences
– Key question: operational definition of speaker characteristics
Speaker characteristics
• Vocal tract shape – Difficult to quantify / computationally extract
• Speaking style (intonation, stress, accent…)– Difficult to extract measures for very short segments
• Voice characteristics– F0 – of course…– Shimmer (amp modulation)– Jitter (roughness - random GCI variation)– Breathiness (open quotient duing voiced speech)
• All relatively easy to extract computationally• All relatively easy to control in speech re-synthesis
No one choice: Jitter
– Dan Ellis• Computational model is segregation by glottal
closure instance
• Model groups coincident energy in auditory filterbank
– Could ‘Jitter’ be useful for segregation?
Jitter as a primary segregation cue• Double vowel experiment:
– 5 synthetic vowels (Assmann & Summerfield)– Synthesized with range of
• 5 pitch levels
• 5 jitter levels
• Results– Pitch difference aids segregation– Jitter difference does not
baseline (0%) 0.5% 1% 2% 4%
% Jitter
45
50
55
60
65
70M
ean
+-
1 S
E p
erc
ent
Jitter analogous to location cues
• Location cues not primary segregation cues– Segregate on pitch first, then– Use location cues for stream formation
• Experiment– Brungard, Darwin (e.g. 2001) Task,
E.g. “Ready Tiger go to White One now”,And “Ready Arrow go to Red Four now”, but
– Speech resynthesized using Praat• Same speaker, different sentences
– Jitter does not aid stream formation
% correct colour/no combination
0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%
% jitter
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mea
n +
- 1
SE
Per
cen
t co
rrec
t
Informing Speech Recognition
• Jitter not no.1 candidate for informing speech recognition…
Task 2.2 Reliability of auditory cues in multi-cue scenarios.
• Ernst & Banks (Nature 2002)– Maximum likelihood estimation good model
for visual/somatosensory cue integration
– Adapted this for AV integration: mouse catching experiment: MLE good modelHofbauer et al., JPP: HPP 2004
– Want to look at speech cue integration in collaboration with Sheffield
Hypothesis
• If listeners organise formants by continuity, then
– the /o/ should lead to /m/ , while
– the /e/ should lead to /n/, with the secondformant of the nasal remaining unassigned
• if proximity is a cue then there should bea changeover at around 1400 Hz
800
2000
2700
375
100 200ms
Formants as a representation?
If sequential grouping of formants explains the perceptual change from /m/ to /n/ for high vowel F2s.
Then transitions should ‘undo’ this change.
time
F
Transitions in /vm/ syllables
• Synthetic /v-m/ segments as before, but 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20ms formant transitions
• 7 fluent German speakers, 200 trials each
• Experimental results fit prediction0 5 10 15 20
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
hear
d a
s /e
m/
transition duration (ms)
Transitions ??
• ‘Format transitions’ of 5 ms have an effect
• Synthetic speech was synthesized at 100 Hz
• formant transitions: half glottal period ?? – Confirmed that transition has to coincide with
energetic bit of glottal period
• Do subjects use a ‘transition’ or just energy in the appropriate band (1-2 kHz) ?
Formant transitions?
• Take /em/ stimulus without transitions (heard as /en/)• add a chirp in place
of F2 transition (0-,5,10,20,40ms)
– down chirp is FM sinusoid 2kHz-1kHz
– control is FM sinusoid 1kHz-2kHz
800
2000
2700
375
100 200ms
vowel nasal
Form
ant
freq
u. (
Hz)
upchirpdown
• ASA: Chirp should be segregated– listeners should hear ‘vowel-nasal’ plus chirp– listeners should find to difficult to report ‘time of
chirp’
Model prediction
Down Chirp
• 7 listeners 200 trialseach.
• Result:– chirp is perceived
by listeners
– and integrated into percept
/en/ is heard as /em/ 0 10 20 30 40
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
p(/
m/)
DOWN chirp duration (ms)
What does it all mean
• Subjects– Hear /em/ when the chirp is added
(any chirp!)– Hear the chirp as a separate sound– Can identify direction of chirp
• Chirps are able to replace formant– Spectral and fine time structure different– Up-direction inconsistent with expected F2
Multiresolution scene analysis
• Speech recognition does not require detail
• Scene analysis does…
MLE framework
• Propose to testMLE model forASA cue integration
• Cue integration as weighted sum () of component probability
time
F
ASA says:Ignore this
bit
Hypothetical Example
time
F
time
F
Labial transition p(m) = 0.8 = 0.7Formant structure p(m) = 0.7 = 0.3
time
F
velar transition p(n) = 0.8 = 0.7Formant structure p(m) = 0.7 = 0.3
unknown transition p(n/m) = 0 = 0.0Formant structure p(m) = 0.7 = 1.0/m/ /m//n/
MLE experiment (Elvira)
time
F
time
F
time
F
Taking it further (back)
• Transition cues
• Prior prob speech high non-speech low
• Localisationcues is low
What does it all mean
• Duplex Perception is – Nothing special– Entirely consistent with a probablistic scene
analysis viewpoint
• Could imagine a fairly high impact publication on this topic
• Training activity on ‘Data fusion’?
Where to go from here
• Would like to collaborate on principled testing of these (and related) ideas – Sheffield ?? IDIAP ??
• Is this any different from missing data recognition?
– Bochum ??• Want to ‘warm up’ duplex perception?
– Most useful: a hands-on modeller
EEG / MEG Study• We argue that
– Scene analysis informs speech perception• Therefore would expect non-speech signals to be
processed/evaluated before speech is recognised• EEG / MEG data should show
– Differential processing of speech / non-speech signals– Perhaps show an effect of the chirps on the latency of speech driven
auditory evoked potential (field)
• We have– A really neat stimulus– Emen signals can be listened to as speech
non-speech signal – Non-speech changes speech identity
(very!) Preliminary data
• Four conditions– /em/ with 20 ms formant transitions– /em/ no formant transitions (en percept)– /em/ no formant transition + 20 ms up chirp (em)– /em/ no formant transition + 20 ms dn chirp (em)
• Two tasks– Identify /em/ s– Identify signals containing chirps
• 16 channel EEG recordings 200 stim each
Predictions
• If ‘speech is special’ then should see significant task dependent differences
• May also see significant differences between stimuli leading to same percept– Effect of chirp might delay speech recognition?
– Here we go:
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 T7 T8 (.. nonspeech __ speech)
LHSRHS
Speech
non-speech
T7 T8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 TP7 TP8 (.. nonspeech __ speech)
LHS
RHS
Speech
non-speech
TP7 TP8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100 F1 F2 (.. nonspeech __ speech)
Speech
non-speech
F1 F2
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120 O1 O2 (.. nonspeech __ speech)
O1 O2 (control…)
No evidencefor differences In early (sensory)procesing
EEG Conclusions
• (very!) preliminary data looks very promising
• Need to get more subjects • Refine paradigm (sequence currently too fast)
– Would a MME study be appropriate
• Would like to – Look at source localisation
(MEG Helsinki, fMRI Liverpool)– Get more channels (MEG Helsinki)