Re: AUDITORY Digest - 17 Nov 2002 to 18 Nov 2002 (#2002-197) (Jont Allen )

Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 17 Nov 2002 to 18 Nov 2002 (#2002-197)
From:    Jont Allen  <jba(at)>
Date:    Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:21:12 -0500

Dear Kala, Phone recog. can have a zero variance when the signal to noise ratio is good. Most errors are due to production, not perception. The interesting question is HOW the errors in the confusion matrix vary as a function of the SNR, for SNR less than 30. Look the many papers on the articulation index for the detail. As an introduction look at: Back up on the URL, and pick a format. Jont btw, I live in mountainside NJ, <15 miles away from Newark, or Rutgers. Automatic digest processor wrote: >There is one message totalling 26 lines in this issue. > >Topics of the day: > > 1. Categorical Perception > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:44:20 -0500 >From: Kala Lakshminarayanan <kala(at)PEGASUS.RUTGERS.EDU> >Subject: Categorical Perception > >Hi Everyone > >I was asked recently what the test-retest reliabilities of categorical >perception identification and discrimination paradigms of phoneme >recognition are and i realised i dint know. I dont know if anyone has >explicitly tested the reliability. Or is it simply a population effect >and reliability is not a relevant question? > >Thanks >Kala > >-- >Kala Lakshminarayanan >The Infancy Studies Laboratory >Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience >197, University Ave, >Newark, NJ 07102 > >------------------------------ > >End of AUDITORY Digest - 17 Nov 2002 to 18 Nov 2002 (#2002-197) >*************************************************************** > -- Jont B. Allen, jba(at); 908/654-1274voice; 908/789-9575 fax 382 Forest Hill Way Mountainside NJ 07092 ``A paradox is simply an error out of control'' --E.T. Jaynes, Chapter 15 of

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University