This is because the female voice in general varies with the speaker less than the male voice, and only the diagonal elements in the adaptation matrix were enough to represent the differences in the female speakers.
These effects could be due to structural differences in these speakers or could be functional (arising because there is a past history of stuttering in these speakers).
However, we used the mel-cepstral distortion improvement ratio (MDIR) instead in this paper because it does not make sense to view the distance between the spectral features in the mel scale of the source and the target speakers when we want to recognize the differences in speaker identities and because the scale of the MCD varies in the evaluation data.
In a truly fascinating exploration into two smart speakers – the Sonos One and the Amazon Echo – BoltVC's Ben Einstein has found some interesting differences in the way a traditional speaker company and an infrastructure juggernaut look at their flagship devices.
Based on this evidence, this study undertook an investigation of the voice quality changes induced by physical task stress, with particular attention paid to the speaker differences in the measured response.
Lastly, to test whether bark origin would have an effect on the male-male aggressive behaviours, we used GLMM with Gaussian error structure to analyse differences in the distance approached towards the speaker after 3 min (initial approach) and the minimum distance to loudspeaker over the next 30 min (minimum approach).
The aim of this study was to identify regional structural differences in the brains of native speakers of a tonal language (Chinese) compared to nontonal (European) language speakers.
Vowel recognition is largely immune to differences in speaker size despite the waveform differences associated with variation in speaker size.
If there are differences in the usefulness of LexTALE for speakers of different L1s, these should emerge in the comparison of these two very distant speaker groups (for a similar reasoning, applied to the age-of-arrival proficiency relage-of-arrival proficiencyok, & Wiley, 2003).
The motivation for this is that in Figs. 7 and 8 which represent NAQ and HRF across the entire corpus, they in fact hide significant individual speaker differences in the baseline NAQ and HRF measurements, which are now shown in Fig. 16.
