Josh Camp
Research Areas
Authored Publications
Sort By
Preview abstract
Inter-sentence pauses are the silences that occur between sentences in a paragraph or a dialogue.
They are an important aspect of long-form speech prosody, as they can affect the naturalness, intelligibility, and effectiveness of communication.
However, the user perception of inter-sentence pauses in long-form speech synthesis is not well understood. Previous work often evaluates pause modelling in conjunction with other prosodic features making it hard to explicitly study how raters perceive differences in inter-sentence pause lengths.
In this paper, using multiple text-to-speech (TTS) datasets that cover different content types, domains, and settings, we investigate how sensitive raters are to changes to the durations of inter-sentence pauses in long-form speech by comparing ground truth audio samples with renditions that have manipulated pause durations.
This experimental design is meant to allow us to draw conclusions regarding the utility that can be expected from similar evaluations when applied to synthesized long-form speech.
We find that, using standard evaluation methodologies, raters are not sensitive to variations in pause lengths unless these deviate exceedingly from the norms or expectations of the speech context.
View details
Preview abstract
Inter-sentence pauses are the silences that occur between sentences in a paragraph or a dialogue.
They are an important aspect of long-form speech prosody, as they can affect the naturalness, intelligibility, and effectiveness of communication.
However, the user perception of inter-sentence pauses in long-form speech synthesis is not well understood. Previous work often evaluates pause modelling in conjunction with other prosodic features making it hard to explicitly study how raters perceive differences in inter-sentence pause lengths.
In this paper, using multiple text-to-speech (TTS) datasets that cover different content types, domains, and settings, we investigate how sensitive raters are to changes to the durations of inter-sentence pauses in long-form speech by comparing ground truth audio samples with renditions that have manipulated pause durations.
This experimental design is meant to allow us to draw conclusions regarding the utility that can be expected from similar evaluations when applied to synthesized long-form speech.
We find that, using standard evaluation methodologies, raters are not sensitive to variations in pause lengths unless these deviate exceedingly from the norms or expectations of the speech context.
View details
Preview abstract
The quality of synthetic speech is typically evaluated using subjective listening tests. An underlying assumption is that these tests are reliable, i.e., running the test multiple times gives consistent results. A common approach to study reliability is a replication study. Existing studies focus primarily on Mean Opinion Score (MOS), and few consider the error bounds from the original test. In contrast, we present a replication study of both MOS and AB preference tests to answer two questions: (1) which of the two test types is more reliable for system comparison, and (2) for both test types, how reliable are the results with respect to their estimated standard error? We find that while AB tests are more reliable for system comparison, standard errors are underestimated for both test types. We show that these underestimates are partially due to broken independence assumptions, and suggest alternate methods of standard error estimation that account for dependencies among ratings.
View details
