Subject: Re: Non-phonological stimuli From: Tony Miller <antonio.miller@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:35:54 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>------=_Part_42004_32648623.1176744954521 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Livia- The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has published a recommendation for Artificial Voice which "is a signal that is mathematically defined and that reproduces the time and spectral characteristics of speech", yet contains no phonetic information. You can download the recommendation (free for a limited time) in PDF format at: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.50/en The appendix of the recommendation includes a speech database CD which contains male and female nonsense speech samples. Listening to them is quite odd, but seriously useful if you are concerned with getting your signals through a voice activity detector or speech vocoder. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Tony Miller Motorola Acoustic Technology Center 8000 West Sunrise Blvd, Mail Stop 22-7-F Plantation, FL 33322-4104 Cell: (954) 605-7982 | Desk: (954) 723-3989 email: antonio.miller@xxxxxxxx Dear List, > > I am doing a project involving phonological processing using auditory > words and pseudowords. I am trying to find a good non-phonological > control stimulus that does not contain recognizable phonemes, but > still has similar characteristics and complexity to speech. An ideal > solution would be some kind of filtering or distortion that I could > apply to my existing word stimuli so that each word is matched with > its own control, but I would be open to independently generated > stimuli as well. I have tried playing the words backwards, and have > experimented a little with band pass filtering, but the results still > end up sounding too "phonological." Does anyone know of better > options? Since we're doing a matching task, each control stimulus > would also have to be unique sounding enough for our subjects to > discriminate. > > Thank you in advance, > > Livia King > ------=_Part_42004_32648623.1176744954521 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Livia-<br><br>The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has published a recommendation for Artificial Voice which "is a signal that is mathematically defined and that reproduces the time and spectral characteristics of speech", yet contains no phonetic information. <br><br>You can download the recommendation (free for a limited time) in PDF format at: <a href="http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.50/en">http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.50/en</a><br><br>The appendix of the recommendation includes a speech database CD which contains male and female nonsense speech samples. Listening to them is quite odd, but seriously useful if you are concerned with getting your signals through a voice activity detector or speech vocoder. <br><br>I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.<br><br>--<br>Tony Miller<br>Motorola Acoustic Technology Center<br>8000 West Sunrise Blvd, Mail Stop 22-7-F<br>Plantation, FL 33322-4104<br>Cell: (954) 605-7982 | Desk: (954) 723-3989 <br>email: <a href="mailto:antonio.miller@xxxxxxxx">antonio.miller@xxxxxxxx</a><br><br><br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Dear List,<br><br>I am doing a project involving phonological processing using auditory<br>words and pseudowords. I am trying to find a good non-phonological<br>control stimulus that does not contain recognizable phonemes, but <br>still has similar characteristics and complexity to speech. An ideal<br>solution would be some kind of filtering or distortion that I could<br>apply to my existing word stimuli so that each word is matched with<br>its own control, but I would be open to independently generated <br>stimuli as well. I have tried playing the words backwards, and have<br>experimented a little with band pass filtering, but the results still<br>end up sounding too "phonological." Does anyone know of better <br>options? Since we're doing a matching task, each control stimulus<br>would also have to be unique sounding enough for our subjects to<br>discriminate.<br><br>Thank you in advance,<br><br>Livia King<br></blockquote> </div><br> ------=_Part_42004_32648623.1176744954521--