Information Services banner Edinburgh Research Archive The University of Edinburgh crest

Edinburgh Research Archive >
Centre for Speech Technology Research >
CSTR publications >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/1050

This item has been viewed 165 times in the last year. View Statistics

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Taylor_1998_b.pdf154.81 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Intonation and dialogue context as constraints for speech recognition
Authors: Taylor, Paul
King, Simon
Isard, Stephen
Wright, Helen
Issue Date: 1998
Citation: Language and Speech, 41(3): 493-512, 1998.
Publisher: Robert Draper
Abstract: This paper describes a way of using intonation and dialogue context to improve the performance of an automatic speech recognition(ASR) system. Our experiments were run on the DCIEM Maptask corpus, a corpus of spontaneous task-oriented dialogue speech. This corpus has been tagged according to a dialogue analysis scheme that assigns each utterance to one of 12 “move types”, such as “acknowledge”, “query-yes/no” or “instruct”. Most asr systems use a bigram language model to constrain the possible sequences of words that might be recognised. Here we use a separate bigram language model for each move type. We show that when the “correct” move-specific language model is used for each utterance in the test set, the word error rate of the recogniser drops. Of course when the recogniser is run on previously unseen data, it cannot know in advance what move type the speaker has just produced. To determine the move type we use an intonation model combined with a dialogue model that puts constraints on possible sequences of move types, as well as the speech recogniser likelihoods for the different move-specific models. In the full recognition system, the combination of automatic move type recognition with the move specific language models reduces the overall word error rate by a small but significant amount when compared with a baseline system that does not take intonation or dialogue acts into account. Interestingly, the word error improvement is restricted to “initiating” move types, where word recognition is important. In “response” move types, where the important information is conveyed by the move type itself - e.g., positive vs. negative response - there is no word error improvement, but recognition of the response types themselves is good. The paper discusses the intonation model, the language models and the dialogue model in detail and describes the architecture in which they are combined.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/1050
ISSN: 0023-8309
Appears in Collections:CSTR publications
Linguistics and English Language publications

Items in ERA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - Feedback