JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.41 73-82 February 1998.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hermes, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hermes, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Measuring the Perceptual Similarity of Pitch Contours

Dik J. Hermes 1
1 IPO, Center for Research on User-System Interaction Eindhoven, The Netherlands

It has been shown that visual display systems of intonation can be employed beneficially in teaching intonation to persons with deafness and in teaching the intonation of a foreign language. In current training situations the correctness of a reproduced pitch contour is rated either by the teacher or automatically. In the latter case an algorithm mostly estimates the maximum deviation from an example contour. In game-like exercises, for instance, the pupil has to produce a pitch contour within the displayed floor and ceiling of a "tunnel" with a preadjusted height. In an experiment described in the companion paper, phoneticians had rated the dissimilarity of two pitch contours both auditorily, by listening to two resynthesized utterances, and visually, by looking at two pitch contours displayed on a computer screen. A test is reported in which these dissimilarity ratings were compared with automatic ratings obtained with this tunnel measure and with three other measures, the mean distance, the root-mean-square (RMS) distance, and the correlation coefficient. The most frequently used tunnel measure appeared to have the weakest correlation with the ratings by the phoneticians. In general, the automatic ratings obtained with the correlation coefficient showed the strongest correlation with the perceptual ratings. A disadvantage of this measure, however, may be that it normalizes for the range of the pitch contours. If range is important, as in intonation teaching to persons with deafness, the mean distance or the RMS distance are the best physical measures for automatic training of intonation.

KEY WORDS: intonation display, teaching of intonation, deafness, similarity

Submitted on October 3, 1996
Accepted on July 10, 1997


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.