A Systematic Comparison of Phonetic Aware Techniques for Speech Enhancement

Clicks: 94
ID: 282555
2022
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #304 of 803 articles by views in arXiv

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 803 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Speech enhancement has seen great improvement in recent years using end-to-end neural networks. However, most models are agnostic to the spoken phonetic content. Recently, several studies suggested phonetic-aware speech enhancement, mostly using perceptual supervision. Yet, injecting phonetic features during model optimization can take additional forms (e.g., model conditioning). In this paper, we conduct a systematic comparison between different methods of incorporating phonetic information in a speech enhancement model. By conducting a series of controlled experiments, we observe the influence of different phonetic content models as well as various feature-injection techniques on enhancement performance, considering both causal and non-causal models. Specifically, we evaluate three settings for injecting phonetic information, namely: i) feature conditioning; ii) perceptual supervision; and iii) regularization. Phonetic features are obtained using an intermediate layer of either a supervised pre-trained Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model or by using a pre-trained Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) model. We further observe the effect of choosing different embedding layers on performance, considering both manual and learned configurations. Results suggest that using a SSL model as phonetic features outperforms the ASR one in most cases. Interestingly, the conditioning setting performs best among the evaluated configurations.
Reference Key
adi2022a Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Or Tal; Moshe Mandel; Felix Kreuk; Yossi Adi
Journal arXiv
Year 2022
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11000v1
Keywords
cs.lg eess.as cs.sd

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.