[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

1. Objective intelligibility measurements (3)

Dear Kevin,
I agree with what you say, and...yes, I think we have been using the adjective "objective" in a wrong way: talking about perception, it is true that "objective" shouldn't be used as we did. Nevertheless, I think it's important to distinguish an estimation done through statistical analysis of subjective tests' responses (the adjective "subjective" it is usually used for this kind of estimation), and an estimation done through analysis algorithms which should predict the response of the subjective tests: referring to this second case, the adjective "objective"it is usually used. In the case of speech intelligibility, we can have an estimation done measuring, for example, the SRT from a group of subject, and an estimation done through algorithms which should be able (even if they are not yet...) to predict the SRT that could be measured from the subjects: in the first case, I usually refer as a "subjective" estimation, whilst in the second case as an"objective" estimation. I understand this is not perfectly correct from a semantic point of view, but, from my (probably inadequate) knowledge of this field, this is how the two adjective are often used.

Lorenzo Picinali
Music, Technology and Innovation Research Centre
De Montfort University
Clephan building, CL 0.19
The Gateway
LE1 9BH Leicester
tel. +44.0116.2551551, internal 6770
e-mail	lpicinali@xxxxxxxxx
web	http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/members-postgrad.htm