Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 2137145

Parameter interpolation in speech synthesis.

Abstract

A comparison has been made of the transition properties of six types of speech synthesizer parameters: serial resonance, prediction coefficients, reflection coefficients, area functions, parallel resonance, and, finally, a simple set of articulatory parameters. The first four synthesizers are formally equivalent and can be made to produce identical steady-state sounds (targets). The last two involve approximations, but achieve similar targets. Formant paths between targets will differ according to the parameter type used during interpolation. Each type was tested on nonsense words spanning a wide range of parameter values. Linear interpolation of synthesizer parameters was used to determine a path between target values. The resultant data were then converted to formant values and plotted as a spectrographic (frequency versus time) representation. Small differences in formant frequency (versus linear transitions of formant frequency and bandwidth) were common, and some quite large differences in formant bandwidths were observed in certain cases.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R D Wright, S J Elliott. 1990. Parameter interpolation in speech synthesis.. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399259

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The use of environmental control units by occupational therapists in spinal cord injury and disease services.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated issues related to the use of environmental control units (ECUs) with persons who have spinal cord injury and disease (SCI/D) to ascertain what, if any, changes are needed to optimize occupational therapy service delivery in this area. METHOD: A questionnaire was mailed to 120 occupational therapists employed by facilities nationwide that serve person with SCI/D. The survey addressed the occupational therapist's role in the recommendation and use of ECUs, funding sources, and training needs. The response rate was 89% (n = 107). RESULTS: Most respondents (88%) indicated that occupational therapists were the predominant professionals in their facilities who evaluated and recommended ECUs. The majority of respondents (84%) reported using ECUs in hospital-based treatment with persons with SCI/D. However, respondents only recommended ECUs for home use for fewer than 25% of their clients. High cost and the lack of third-party reimbursement were the primary reasons that deterred respondents from recommending ECUs for home use. Fifty-five percent of the respondents reported a need for basic training and 86% for more in-depth education and training in environmental control technologies. CONCLUSION: Outcomes data are needed to support the use of ECUs and to educate third-party payers about the benefits of ECUs for clients with quadriplegia in order to increase rates of reimbursement. In addition, occupational therapists themselves may need improved training in evaluating and training clients in the use of ECU technology.

Communication Devices for People with Disabilities