Skip to main content

Effect of Window Size and Shift Period in Mel-Warped Cepstral Feature Extraction on GMM-Based Speaker Verification

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2688))

Abstract

This paper investigates how window size and shift period affect the performance of a speaker verification system. Specifically, we investigate their effects on verification accuracy and computation time of speaker verification systems built using the mel-warped cepstral feature extraction and Guassian Mixture Model. Experiments show that window size should not be larger than a critical point, which is determined by testing with a set of registered speakers. Otherwise, the computation time increases while the verification accuracy decreases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. Che and Q. Lin, “Speaker recognition using HMM with experiments on the YOHO database,” Proceeding of EUROSPEECH, pp. 625–628, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Reynolds, “Speaker identification and verification using Guassian mixture speaker models,” Speech Communications, vol. 17, pp. 91–108, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. K.R. Farrell, R. J. Mammone, and K. T. Assaleh, “Speaker recognition using neural networks and conventional classifiers,” IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 194–205, Jan. 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. A. Dempster, N. Laird, and D. Rubin, “Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 39, pp. 1–38, 1977.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Picone, “Continuous speech recognition using hidden Markov models,” IEEE Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 7, issue 3, pp.26–41, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. E. Rosenberg, J. DeLong, C. H. Lee, B. H. Juang, and F. K. Soong, “The use of cohort normalized scores for speaker verification,” Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, pp. 599–602, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Carey, E. Parris, and J. Bridle, “A speaker verification system using alphanets,” Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 397–400, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. R. Deller, J. G. Proakis, and J. H. L. Hansen, Discrete-Time Processing of Speech Signals, New York: Macmillan, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Gish and M. Schmidt, “Text-independent speaker identification,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 11, pp. 18–32, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. B. B. Hubbard, The world according to wavelets: the story of a mathematical technique in the making, Wellesley, MA.: A K Peters, 1998.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. F. Phan, E. Micheli-Tzanakou, and S. Sideman, “Speaker identification using neural networks and wavelets,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 19, issue 1, pp. 92–101, Jan–Feb. 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. C.-T. Hsieh, E. Lai, and Y.-C. Wang, “Robust speech features based on wavelet transform with application to speaker identification,” IEE Proceedings. Vision, Image and Signal Processing, vol. 149, issue 2, pp. 108–114, Apr. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. F. Walnut, An Introduction to Wavelet Analysis, Boston: Birkhauser, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C. Becchetti and L. P. Ricotti, Speech recognition: theory and C++ implementation, New York: Wiley, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. P. Campbell, Jr., “Testing with the YOHO CD-ROM voice verification corpus,” Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 1, pp. 341–344, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Bhattacharyya, T. Srikanthan, and P. Krishnamurthy, “Ideal GMM parameters & posterior log likelihood for speaker verification,” Neural Networks for Signal Processing XI: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Signal Processing Society Workshop, pp. 471–480, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Rabiner and B.-H. Juang, Fundamentals of speech recognition, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Leung, C., Moon, Y. (2003). Effect of Window Size and Shift Period in Mel-Warped Cepstral Feature Extraction on GMM-Based Speaker Verification. In: Kittler, J., Nixon, M.S. (eds) Audio- and Video-Based Biometric Person Authentication. AVBPA 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2688. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44887-X_52

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44887-X_52

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40302-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44887-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics