How Does Alignment Error Affect Automated Pronunciation Scoring in Children's Speech?

Automated goodness of pronunciation scores measure deviation from typical adult speech by first phonetically segmenting speech using forced alignment and then computing phoneme likelihoods. Care must be taken to distinguish between the impact of alignment error (a spurious signal) and true acoustic deviation on the automated score. Using mixed effects modeling, we predict <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>Δ</mml:mi> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math> , the difference between pronunciation scores computed using manual alignment ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:math> ) versus computed using automatic forced alignments ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:math> ). Pronunciation deviations and alignment error are both magnified in children's speech and may be influenced by factors such as phoneme position and phoneme type. Our methodology shows that alignment error has a moderate effect on <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>Δ</mml:mi> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math> , and other variables have small to no effect. Manual <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>PLLR</mml:mi></mml:math> closely matches automatically calculated <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>PLLR</mml:mi></mml:math> following cross utterance averaging. Thus, practical comparisons between child speakers should be very comparable across the two methods.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2024-2239
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Speech Recognition and Synthesis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.35
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How Does Alignment Error Affect Automated Pronunciation Scoring in Children's Speech?

Lucas Annear, Prad Kadambi, Katherine C. Hustad, Visar Berisha et al.
1 citations
Speech Recognition and Synthesis
0.35
article

How Does Alignment Error Affect Automated Pronunciation Scoring in Children's Speech?

Lucas Annear, Prad Kadambi, Katherine C. Hustad, Visar Berisha, Julie Liss, Tristan Mahr, Henry Nomeland
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Automated goodness of pronunciation scores measure deviation from typical adult speech by first phonetically segmenting speech using forced alignment and then computing phoneme likelihoods. Care must be taken to distinguish between the impact of alignment error (a spurious signal) and true acoustic deviation on the automated score. Using mixed effects modeling, we predict <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>Δ</mml:mi> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math> , the difference between pronunciation scores computed using manual alignment ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:math> ) versus computed using automatic forced alignments ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:math> ). Pronunciation deviations and alignment error are both magnified in children's speech and may be influenced by factors such as phoneme position and phoneme type. Our methodology shows that alignment error has a moderate effect on <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>Δ</mml:mi> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math> , and other variables have small to no effect. Manual <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>PLLR</mml:mi></mml:math> closely matches automatically calculated <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>PLLR</mml:mi></mml:math> following cross utterance averaging. Thus, practical comparisons between child speakers should be very comparable across the two methods.

Vol. 2024
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US), Arizona State University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 34%
Speech Recognition and Synthesis
0.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.