Speech Lab Pitch

Look Whos Talking Now SEM Exchange, Fall 2008
October 9, 2008
1
Montgomery College
Speaker Identification Using Pitch Engineering Expo Banquet 2009
05/08/09
Speaker Identification Using a
Pitch Detection Algorithm

Presenters:
Estefany Carrillo
Roberto M. Melndez
Komal Syed

Montgomery College
Speech Processing
Center

Faculty Advisor:
Dr. Uchechukwu Abanulo
October 9, 2008
2
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction
Speech Classification Algorithm
Application and Results
Summary

Presentation Outline

Presenters:
Estefany Carrillo
Roberto M. Melndez
Komal Syed

Montgomery College
Speech Processing
Center

Faculty Advisor:
October 9, 2008
3
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Objectives

To estimate the pitch contour of a given
speech signal using autocorrelation

To determine the effectiveness of pitch
for speaker identification

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
4
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Speech Signals

To understand pitch, one must first understand
some basic concepts of speech signals
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Energy level waveform of "Shout" 0.8s @ 10kHz
Time (s)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
5
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Voiced vs. Unvoiced Speech
5
Voiced

Quasi-periodic
excitation

Modulation by vocal
tract

Production of mainly
vowels

High Energy

Unvoiced

No periodic vibration
of vocal chords

Noise-like nature

Production of most
consonants

Low Energy

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
6
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Speech Signals

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (s)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 0.52
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Energy level waveform of "Shout" 0.8s @10kHz
Time (s)
A
m
p
l i t u
d
e

0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Energy level waveform of "Shout" 0.8s @10kHz
Time (s)
A
m
p
l i t u
d
e

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
7
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Pitch Illustration
0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 0.52
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (s)
A
m
p
l i t u
d
e

Pitch period is the distance in time from one peak
to the next
Approximately the same for the same phoneme by
the same speaker
0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
A
m
p
l i t u
d
e

No periodicity, no frequency

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
8
Montgomery College
05/08/09
How do we measure the pitch
period Automatically?
Correlation
Measure of similarity between two signals
Two signals compared by
Sliding one signal by a certain time lag
Multiplying both the overlapping regions
Repeating the process and adding the products
until there is no more overlap
Cross-correlation two different signals
compared
Autocorrelation the same signal correlated
Results in a maximum peak at which we set time
= 0, and the rest of the correlation signals tapers
of to zero

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
9
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Rationale for Autocorrelation

Introduction




Summary

1. A periodic (or quasi-periodic) signal will be
similar from one period to the next

2. It is expected that the maximum peak in the
autocorrelation function will occur at the pitch
period value for each speech frame.
October 9, 2008
10
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
11
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Speech Classification
1. Given a normalized speech signal (amplitudes from -1 to
1)

2. Since speech is non-stationary (changes characteristics
frequently with time), we first segment this signal into
short frames (of about 10 ms)

3. We then compute the average energy of each frame:

4. Based on a pre-determined threshold, we classify the
speech into voiced or unvoiced or background

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
12
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
13
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Autocorrelation Based PDA
1. First we automatically assign a pitch of zero to every
unvoiced or silence frame determined from the speech
classification algorithm

2. We then compute the autocorrelation function of each
voiced frame

3. A peak is searched for within the 2ms to 16ms range

4. The lag of this peak is considered the pitch period for that
frame, and the pitch is computed as the inverse of that
lag.

Introduction




Summary

Pitch = 0
Pitch = 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-200
0
200
400
Sample #
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Autocorrelation of a frame of speech
Zero lag
October 9, 2008
14
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

Autocorrelation Based PDA -
Illustration
0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.015
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Pitch Period of One Frame of Speech
Time (s)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Autocorrelation of One Frame of Speech
Time (s)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
H
z
)
One itch Period = 7.3ms (approx.)
Maximum
Autocorrelation
Estimated pitch period
= about 7.3ms pitch =
1/7.3ms = 137Hz
October 9, 2008
15
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

October 9, 2008
16
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

Speaker Recognition
Reference Speech
Feature Extraction
Model Building
Test Speech
Feature
Extraction
Comparison
Recognition
Decision
System
Output
October 9, 2008
17
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

Speaker Identification using PDA
Reference Speech
Pitch Detection
Average Pitch of Signal
Test Speech
Pitch
Detection and
average
pitch
computation
Distance
Computation
Speaker
= Minimum
distance
System
Output
Test Speech
Test Speech
October 9, 2008
18
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

Experiment
Group II: 10 Men Group I: 10 Women
1. Record each group member twice saying
the same phrase
2. Record each group member saying a
different phrase

October 9, 2008
19
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Categories
Case I: Female/Same Phrase
Case II: Male/Same Phrase
Case III: Female/Different
Phrase
Case IV: Male Different Phrase
Case V: Female and Male/Same
Phrase
Case VI: Female and
Male/Different Phrase

October 9, 2008
20
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Procedure
1. Select a range of thresholds for
unvoiced segments of speech
Range = [0.001:0.0005:0.01]
2. Construct the pitch contour for each
of the reference and test speech files
for all thresholds
3. Using minimum distance criterion,
determine the test speaker that
matches the reference speaker

October 9, 2008
21
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Pitch Contours
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 10
4
-2
-1
0
1
Test Speaker
Time (seconds)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 10
4
0
200
400
600
Time (seconds)
E
n
e
r
g
y
P
I
T
C
H
A
M
P
L
I
T
U
D
E

Reference Speaker
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
October 9, 2008
22
Montgomery College
05/08/09
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 10
4
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Identified Speaker
Time (seconds)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 10
4
0
200
400
600
Time (seconds)
E
n
e
r
g
y
P
I
T
C
H
Matched Test Speaker
A
M
P
L
I
T
U
D
E

Time (ms)
Time (ms)
Pitch Contours
October 9, 2008
23
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

Best Threshold
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
-3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Threshold
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Thresholds
3. Select threshold that gives maximum number of
correctly matched speakers for each category

October 9, 2008
24
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Noise
4. Add different levels of noise (5dB
to 30dB) to:
Both reference and test speech files
Only reference speech file
Only test speech files
5. Examine the number of matched
speakers vs. the level of SNR
(Signal to Noise Ratio)
October 9, 2008
25
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Female/Same Phrase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
SNR Levels
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise added to Reference and Test Speech Files
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Reference File
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Test Files
Noise Added to
Both Files
Noise Added to
Reference File
Noise Added to
Test File
October 9, 2008
26
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Male/Same Phrase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Reference and Test Speech Files
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Reference File
Noise Added to
Both Files
Noise Added to
Reference File
Noise Added to
Test File
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Test Files
October 9, 2008
27
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Female/Different Phrase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Reference Speech Files
Noise Added to
Both Files
Noise Added to
Reference File
Noise Added to
Test File
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Test Speech Files
October 9, 2008
28
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Male/Different Phrase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Reference Speech File
Noise Added to
Both Files
Noise Added to
Reference File
Noise Added to
Test File
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
October 9, 2008
29
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Male and Female/Same Phrase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5
10
15
20
25
30
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Noise Added to
Both Files
Noise Added to
Reference File
Noise Added to
Test File
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
October 9, 2008
30
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Male and Female/Different Phrase
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Noise Added to
Both Files
Noise Added to
Reference File
Noise Added to
Test File
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
SNR
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
t
c
h
e
s
Accuracy at Different Levels of Noise Added to Test Speech File
October 9, 2008
31
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary
Summary
October 9, 2008
32
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Introduction




Summary

1. Pitch detection algorithms are heavily
dependent on speech segmentation
accuracy
2. Pitch is somewhat effective as a simple
speaker identifier
Summary
October 9, 2008
33
Montgomery College
05/08/09
Results
3. As signal to noise ratios increase,
the number of correctly identified
speakers increases
4. There seems to be an optimum
signal to noise ratio that gives the
maximum number of correctly
matched speakers

October 9, 2008
34
Montgomery College
05/08/09

Presenters:
Estefany Carrillo
Roberto M. Melndez
Komal Syed

Montgomery College
Speech Processing
Center

Faculty Advisor:

Speech Lab Pitch

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Speech Lab Pitch

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Look Whos Talking Now SEM Exchange, Fall 2008

Anda mungkin juga menyukai