Search

19 Jan 2018: evaluated by 30 native En-glish speakers using a MUSHRA-like test. ... Eachsubject evaluated 36 different sentences (18male, 18 female). The systems under test were:. •

15 Jun 2018: Data from the Business Language Testing Service(BULATS) English tests was used for training and test. ... To avoid a data mismatch,the recognition hypothesis was used both in training and test.

3 May 2018: Test subjectswere asked to assess the quality of the speech on a 1-5 scale. ... 10 test subjectswere used. Models A and B are compared and models A and C arecompared.

20 Feb 2018: The relevant contextual factors were cho-sen as a result of informal perceptual tests. ... 6. EvaluationA perceptual listening test was conducted to evaluate the com-bined conversions.

15 Jun 2018: The. Table 3:Test audio data summary. Id Set Band Type Dur (hrs). ... Acero, “Estimating speech recogni-tion error rate without acoustic test data,” inEurospeech, 2003.

20 Feb 2018: Adaptatation to a very small amountof sad speech data also resulted in considerably sadder prosody, as confirmed bypreference tests. ... A t-test(p<0.05) on the two samples confirmed that the samples are not statisticallydistinguishable.

13 Mar 2018: This is restrictive in practicein that test data may contain distortions that take it outside the strict ambit of the trainingpositives. ... This can be computed in terms of likelihoods. (1)so then the test becomes (2)where.

20 Feb 2018: Thedata was divided into a test set and a training set (see table 1). ... PPL (held out)WER (test). k sentences. WER. (%) /. PPL. Language Modelling Toolkit [12].

13 Mar 2018: Using the later index,Test-C tests Sequence-I, Test-D tests Sequence-II. The correctratios of the coarse localization are shown in Fig. ... Fig. 9. Layout of the outdoor environment in a campus. Test-E tests Sequence-III.

20 Feb 2018: Objective evaluation. In order to test the performance of the different repair systems,. ... T - O 0.66 0.20 0.14. Table 8: Preference test results.