Re: Intelligibility of reversed speech, Why?

[Jont Allen <jba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yadong,

Well we all have our pet theories, but nobody can prove their favorite.

The other question is "Why should this processing destroy intelligibility?"
Isn't the ear supposed to be phase deaf? Isn't this consistent with
this phase deafness? (this comment is intended to be with tongue in cheek).

I think it boils down to what are the speech cues. The experiment of Bob
Shannon (the noise driven channel vocoder experiment) convinced
a lot of people these speech cues are very primitive.

Jont

Yadong Wang wrote:

> Dear Auditory list,
>
> Saberi & Perrott ("Cognitive restoration of reversed speech," Nature 398:
> 760, 1999)
> recently showed that local time reversal does not destroy intelligibility,
> if the
> time reversal window is brief.
>
> (Please go to http://www.utdallas.edu/~assmann/TREV/trevdemo.html for the
> details.)
>
> Why is that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Yadong            Toward a Man-made Brain
> ___________________________________________
> 401-874-5392 (O)       Leave Msg Please...
> 401-789-7742 (H)
>
> Dept of Electrical  & Computer Engineering
> HTTP HomePage         http://www.CoZeC.com

--
Jont B. Allen
AT&T Labs-Research, Shannon Laboratory, E161
180 Park Ave., Florham Park NJ, 07932-0971
973/360-8545voice, x7111fax, http://www.research.att.com/~jba