Advertisement

Designing of Gabor filters for spectro-temporal feature extraction to improve the performance of ASR system

  • Anirban DuttaEmail author
  • Gudmalwar Ashishkumar
  • Ch. V. Rama Rao
Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Existing automatic speech recognition (ASR) system uses the spectral or temporal features of speech. The performance of such systems is still poor compared to the human perception of hearing, especially in noisy environments. This paper concentrates on the extraction of spectro-temporal features based on physiological and psychoacoustically inspired approaches. Here, two dimensional Gabor filters are used to estimate the spectro-temporal features from time–frequency representation of uttered speech signals. The Gabor filters are designed using the concept of constant Q factor. It is found that human perception system maintains approximately constant Q in its frequency response along the chain of its filter bank. Constant Q analysis ensures that the Gabor filters occupy a set of geometrically spaced spectral and temporal bins. Time–frequency representation of speech signal is a key ingredient for Gabor based feature extraction method. For time–frequency mapping, Gammatonegram is adopted instead of conventional spectrogram representations. The performance of the ASR system with the proposed feature set is experimentally validated using AURORA2 noisy digit database. Under clean training; the proposed features obtained a relative improvement of about 50% in word error rate (WER) compared to Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) features. A relative improvement of 23% in WER is also obtained compared with that of existing spectro-temporal feature extraction methods. Further analysis is carried out on TIMIT corrupted with noise samples taken from the NOISEX-92 database. The experimental verification proves the robustness of proposed features in building a robust acoustic model for the ASR system.

Keywords

Spectro-temporal feature Constant Q factor Deep neural network Gabor filter Speech recognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is an outcome of the R&D work undertaken Project under the Visvesvaraya PhD Scheme of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, being implemented by Digital India Corporation. We are thankful to Electronics and Communication Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Meghalaya for giving us the opportunity to use the necessary equipments required to conduct the research.

References

  1. Amrouche, A., Taleb-Ahmed, A., Rouvaen, J. M., & Yagoub, M. C. (2009). Improvement of the speech recognition in noisy environments using a nonparametric regression. International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems, 24(1), 49–67.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, J., Vincent, E., Ma, N., Christensen, H., & Green, P. (2013). The PASCAL CHiME speech separation and recognition challenge. Computer Speech and Language, 27(3), 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, T., Ru, P., & Shamma, S. A. (2005). Multiresolution spectrotemporal analysis of complex sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(2), 887–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, S., & Mermelstein, P. (1980). Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 28(4), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Depireux, D. A., Simon, J. Z., Klein, D. J., & Shamma, S. A. (2001). Spectro-temporal response field characterization with dynamic ripples in ferret primary auditory cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85(3), 1220–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dörfler, M. (2001). Time–frequency analysis for music signals: A mathematical approach. Journal of New Music Research, 30(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubey, R. K., & Kumar, A. (2013). Non-intrusive speech quality assessment using several combinations of auditory features. International Journal of Speech Technology, 16(1), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis, D. P. W. (2009). Gammatone-like spectrograms. http://www.ee.columbia.edu/dpwe/resources/matlab/gammatonegram.
  9. Fartash, M., Setayeshi, S., & Razzazi, F. (2015). A noise robust speech features extraction approach in multidimensional cortical representation using multilinear principal component analysis. International Journal of Speech Technology, 18(3), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganapathy, S., & Omar, M. (2014). Auditory motivated front-end for noisy speech using spectro-temporal modulation filtering. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(5), EL343–EL349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garofolo, J. S., Lamel, L. F., Fisher, W. M., Fiscus, J. G., & Pallett, D. S. (1993). DARPA TIMIT acoustic–phonetic continuous speech corpus CD-ROM. NIST speech disc 1-1.1. NASA STI/Recon technical report n 93.Google Scholar
  12. Gautam, S., & Singh, L. (2017). Development of spectro-temporal features of speech in children. International Journal of Speech Technology, 20(3), 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gold, B., Morgan, N., & Ellis, D. (2011). Speech and audio signal processing: Processing and perception of speech and music. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hermansky, H., & Morgan, N. (1994). Rasta processing of speech. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 2(4), 578–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G., Mohamed, Ar, Jaitly, N., et al. (2012). Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29, 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirsch, H. G. (2005). FaNT-filtering and noise adding tool. Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences. http://dnt.kr.hsnr.de/download.html.
  17. Hirsch, H. G., & Pearce, D. (2000). The aurora experimental framework for the performance evaluation of speech recognition systems under noisy conditions. In: ASR2000-Automatic Speech Recognition: Challenges for the new Millennium ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop (ITRW).Google Scholar
  18. Holighaus, N., Dörfler, M., Velasco, G. A., & Grill, T. (2013). A framework for invertible, real-time constant-Q transforms. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 21(4), 775–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanedera, N., Arai, T., Hermansky, H., & Pavel, M. (1999). On the relative importance of various components of the modulation spectrum for automatic speech recognition. Speech Communication, 28(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katsiamis, A. G., Drakakis, E. M., & Lyon, R. F. (2007). Practical gammatone-like filters for auditory processing. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, 2007(1), 063685.Google Scholar
  21. Kim, C., & Stern, R. M. (2009). Feature extraction for robust speech recognition using a power-law nonlinearity and power-bias subtraction. In: Tenth annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, C., & Stern, R. M. (2016). Power-normalized cepstral coefficients (PNCC) for robust speech recognition. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing, 24(7), 1315–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleinschmidt, M. (2003). Localized spectro-temporal features for automatic speech recognition. In Eighth European conference on speech communication and technology.Google Scholar
  24. Kleinschmidt, M., & Gelbart, D. (2002). Improving word accuracy with Gabor feature extraction. In Seventh international conference on spoken language processing.Google Scholar
  25. Kovács, G., Tóth, L., & Van Compernolle, D. (2015). Selection and enhancement of Gabor filters for automatic speech recognition. International Journal of Speech Technology, 18(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martinez, A. M. C., Moritz, N., & Meyer, B. T. (2014). Should deep neural nets have ears? The role of auditory features in deep learning approaches. In Fifteenth annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  27. Martinez, A. M. C., Mallidi, S. H., & Meyer, B. T. (2017). On the relevance of auditory-based Gabor features for deep learning in robust speech recognition. Computer Speech and Language, 45, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 953–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mesgarani, N., Slaney, M., & Shamma, S. A. (2006). Discrimination of speech from nonspeech based on multiscale spectro-temporal modulations. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(3), 920–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mesgarani, N., David, S., & Shamma, S. (2007). Representation of phonemes in primary auditory cortex: How the brain analyzes speech. In 2007 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing—ICASSP’07 (Vol. 4, pp. IV-765). IEEE.Google Scholar
  31. Mesgarani, N., Thomas, S., & Hermansky, H. (2010). A multistream multiresolution framework for phoneme recognition. In Eleventh annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, B. T., & Kollmeier, B. (2011). Robustness of spectro-temporal features against intrinsic and extrinsic variations in automatic speech recognition. Speech Communication, 53(5), 753–767.Google Scholar
  33. Mohamed, Ar., Sainath, T. N., Dahl, G. E., Ramabhadran, B., Hinton, G. E., Picheny, M. A., et al. (2011). Deep belief networks using discriminative features for phone recognition. In ICASSP (pp. 5060–5063).Google Scholar
  34. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2016). Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patel, H., Thakkar, A., Pandya, M., & Makwana, K. (2018). Neural network with deep learning architectures. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 39(1), 31–38.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patterson, R., et al. (1992). Complex sounds and auditory images. In Y. Cazals, et al. (Eds.), Auditory physiology and perception. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Povey, D., Ghoshal, A., Boulianne, G., Burget, L., Glembek, O., Goel, N., et al. (2011). The Kaldi speech recognition toolkit. Technical report. IEEE Signal Processing Society.Google Scholar
  38. Povey, D., Zhang, X., & Khudanpur, S. (2014). Parallel training of deep neural networks with natural gradient and parameter averaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:14107455.
  39. Qiu, A., Schreiner, C. E., & Escabí, M. A. (2003). Gabor analysis of auditory midbrain receptive fields: Spectro-temporal and binaural composition. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90(1), 456–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rath, S. P., Povey, D., Veselỳ, K., & Cernockỳ, J. (2013). Improved feature processing for deep neural networks. In Interspeech (pp. 109–113).Google Scholar
  41. Revathi, A., Sasikaladevi, N., Nagakrishnan, R., & Jeyalakshmi, C. (2018). Robust emotion recognition from speech: Gamma tone features and models. International Journal of Speech Technology, 21(3), 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schädler, M. R., & Kollmeier, B. (2015). Separable spectro-temporal Gabor filter bank features: Reducing the complexity of robust features for automatic speech recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 2047–2059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schädler, M. R., Meyer, B. T., & Kollmeier, B. (2012). Spectro-temporal modulation subspace-spanning filter bank features for robust automatic speech recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(5), 4134–4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schröder, J., Goetze, S., & Anemüller, J. (2015). Spectro-temporal Gabor filterbank features for acoustic event detection. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 23(12), 2198–2208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shokouhi, N., & Hansen, J. H. (2017). Teager–Kaiser energy operators for overlapped speech detection. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 25(5), 1035–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slaney, M., et al. (1993). An efficient implementation of the Patterson–Holdsworth auditory filter bank. Technical report, 35(8). Apple Computer, Perception Group.Google Scholar
  47. Spille, C., Kollmeier, B., & Meyer, B. T. (2017). Combining binaural and cortical features for robust speech recognition. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing, 25(4), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Todisco, M., Delgado, H., & Evans, N. (2016). A new feature for automatic speaker verification anti-spoofing: Constant Q cepstral coefficients. In Speaker Odyssey workshop, Bilbao, Spain (Vol. 25, pp. 249–252).Google Scholar
  49. Valero, X., & Alias, F. (2012). Gammatone cepstral coefficients: Biologically inspired features for non-speech audio classification. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 14(6), 1684–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Varga, A., & Steeneken, H. J. (1993). Assessment for automatic speech recognition: II. NOISEX-92: A database and an experiment to study the effect of additive noise on speech recognition systems. Speech Communication, 12(3), 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang, X., Trmal, J., Povey, D., & Khudanpur, S. (2014). Improving deep neural network acoustic models using generalized maxout networks. In 2014 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 215–219). IEEE.Google Scholar
  52. Zhao, S. Y., Ravuri, S., & Morgan, N. (2009). Multi-stream to many-stream: Using spectro-temporal features for ASR. In: Tenth annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyShillongIndia

Personalised recommendations