[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
1. Objective intelligibility measurements (3)
Dear Kevin,
I agree with what you say, and...yes, I think we have been using the
adjective "objective" in a wrong way: talking about perception, it is
true that "objective" shouldn't be used as we did.
Nevertheless, I think it's important to distinguish an estimation done
through statistical analysis of subjective tests' responses (the
adjective "subjective" it is usually used for this kind of estimation),
and an estimation done through analysis algorithms which should predict
the response of the subjective tests: referring to this second case, the
adjective "objective"it is usually used.
In the case of speech intelligibility, we can have an estimation done
measuring, for example, the SRT from a group of subject, and an
estimation done through algorithms which should be able (even if they
are not yet...) to predict the SRT that could be measured from the
subjects: in the first case, I usually refer as a "subjective"
estimation, whilst in the second case as an"objective" estimation.
I understand this is not perfectly correct from a semantic point of
view, but, from my (probably inadequate) knowledge of this field, this
is how the two adjective are often used.
Yours
--
Lorenzo Picinali
Music, Technology and Innovation Research Centre
De Montfort University
Clephan building, CL 0.19
The Gateway
LE1 9BH Leicester
UK
tel. +44.0116.2551551, internal 6770
e-mail lpicinali@xxxxxxxxx
web http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/members-postgrad.htm