Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Paul
dc.contributor.authorKing, Simon
dc.contributor.authorIsard, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorWright, Helen
dc.coverage.spatial25en
dc.date.accessioned2006-05-12T13:13:50Z
dc.date.available2006-05-12T13:13:50Z
dc.date.issued1998
dc.identifier.citationLanguage and Speech, 41(3): 493-512, 1998.en
dc.identifier.issn0023-8309
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/1050
dc.description.abstractThis 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.en
dc.format.extent158527 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherRobert Draperen
dc.titleIntonation and dialogue context as constraints for speech recognitionen
dc.typeArticleen


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record