1 / 25

Variability of Formant Measurements – Part 2

Variability of Formant Measurements – Part 2. Philip Harrison J P French Associates & Department of Language & Linguistic Science, York University IAFPA 2006 Annual Conference Göteborg, Sweden. Summary. Briefly recap previous analysis & last year’s presentation New analysis & results

geordi
Download Presentation

Variability of Formant Measurements – Part 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Variability of Formant Measurements – Part 2 Philip Harrison J P French Associates & Department of Language & Linguistic Science, York University IAFPA 2006 Annual Conference Göteborg, Sweden

  2. Summary • Briefly recap previous analysis & last year’s presentation • New analysis & results • PhD research • Questions l

  3. Study • Aim: Investigate the variability of formant measurements which exists both within and between different software programs currently used in the field of forensic phonetics. • 3 programs – Praat, Multispeech & Wavesurfer • 3 analysis parameters – LPC order, analysis (frame/window) width, pre-emphasis • Word list – 5 vowel categories – 6 tokens per category – read 3 times – total = 90 tokens • 2 speakers – Peter French & me • 2 simultaneous recordings – microphone & telephone l

  4. Results & Analysis • Scripts used to obtain 37,260 individual formant measurements using LPC formant trackers • Analysis – microphone data only • Initial observations of raw formant data • Quantitative analysis of results • Statistical analysis l

  5. FLEECE TRAP PALM GOOSE SCHWA My F1s from PraatLPC Variation l

  6. The Plot Shows… • Scripts work – (used in fault finding) • Vowel categories clear • Greatest deviation – LPC orders 6 & 8 • Orders 10 to 18 very similar for FLEECE, GOOSE & SCHWA • Generated many more plots for all formants, parameters & software • Lots of variation • Difficult to interpret l

  7. Quantitative Analysis • Quantitative Difference Analysis • No absolute measurement to compare formants with – outcome of analysis, not directly comparable with acoustic reality • Difference calculated between value obtained with default analysis settings • Absolute difference calculated for each formant then averaged by vowel category • Shows variation between two analyses l

  8. Observations • Numerical analysis confirmed impression from plots • Clear differences between vowel categories, speakers, formants, software & settings • Complex set of results with no clear patterns l

  9. Statistical Analysis • Paired t-test between measurements from default settings and varied settings for each vowel category • Null hypothesis – altering analysis settings  no effect • Exp hypothesis – altering analysis settings  effect • Number of significant ‘hits’ summed – max 15 • Higher number = greater variation in formant measurements • 2 significance levels – 0.01 & 0.05 l

  10. Conclusions • Hoped to have clear patterns, able to produce set of guidelines/recommendations • Patterns only at specific, detailed level • Very clear that many factors affect formant measurements • No software is obviously better than others • Care should be taken when measuring formants l

  11. New Work!!! • Initial data contained obviously incorrect measurements • Discard measurements – criterion? • Determine acceptable band • Spectrograms – no • Formant bandwidths – no (attempted) • LPC tracker & spectrogram – no (attempted) • Spectrum of selection – yes but still encountered problems • Band limit 300 Hz – impressionistic l

  12. Spectrum Measurements • Used to determine centre of 300 Hz acceptable band • Spectrum with 260 Hz bandwidth – same as default spectrogram • Measured peaks F1, F2 & F3 • Issues/problems • Windowed -> biased to centre of selection • Formant peaks not always clear – some tokens ignored • Double peaks – highest peak measured l

  13. Analysis of Accepted Measurements • Analyse LPC variation only – other parameters more stable – not altered • No accurate reference which raw measurements can be judged against • Accepted results provide indication of accuracy & consistency • Clear patterns in accepted formants • Condense results – % accepted per vowel category l

  14. Plot of Accepted Results l

  15. Me Microphone Accepted Praat Multispeech Wavesurfer F1 F2 F3 l

  16. Me Telephone Accepted Praat Multispeech Wavesurfer F1 F2 F3 l

  17. JPF Microphone Accepted Praat Multispeech Wavesurfer F1 F2 F3 l

  18. JPF Telephone Accepted Praat Multispeech Wavesurfer F1 F2 F3 l

  19. General Patterns • Praat & Multispeech – bell curves • Most consistent setting – P 10, MS 10 to 14 • Curves shifted to left (lower LPC) for phone • Wavesurfer – horizontal • Different behaviour to Praat & Multispeech • Some very weak results – especially F3 • For me better results for phone recording (also true for Praat & Multispeech) • Most consistent setting Praat LPC 10 • Again variation across vowel category, speaker, formant, software & condition l

  20. Microphone vs Telephone • Künzel (2001): • Landline phone vs microphone • Largest F1 difference in region of 14% for close vowels • Byrne & Foulkes (2004): • GSM mobile phone vs microphone • F1 average 29% higher for GSM • Not big differences for F2 & F3 • Current data (spectral comparisons) – only 2 speakers l

  21. Comparison Tables Me JPF l

  22. General Observations • LPC tracks for phone recordings more stable, easier to measure • Less ‘information’ above F3 • Possibly pre-filter recordings? • Different LPC orders produce better tracks for different formants of the same token • Contradicts my previous advice to keep LPC setting constant across vowel categories l

  23. PhD Next Steps • Use synthesised speech • Formant values specified • Repeat software experiments • Other factors to investigate • Pitch • Voice quality • Interaction of analysis parameters l

  24. Other Potential Areas of Investigation for PhD • Effects of GSM coding & transmission • Acoustic environments • Pseudo-formants – source??? • Mouth/telephone distance & orientation • Any other ideas…? l

  25. Questions ? Thanks to Peter French & Paul Foulkes l

More Related