Evaluation of a speaker identification system with and without fusion using three databases in the presence of noise and handset effects

Musab T. S. Al-Kaltakchi, Wai L. Woo, Satnam Dlay, Jonathon A. Chambers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)
22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this study, a speaker identification system is considered consisting of a feature extraction stage which utilizes both power normalized cepstral coefficients (PNCCs) and Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC). Normalization is applied by employing cepstral mean and variance normalization (CMVN) and feature warping (FW), together with acoustic modeling using a Gaussian mixture model-universal background model (GMM-UBM). The main contributions are comprehensive evaluations of the effect of both additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and non-stationary noise (NSN) (with and without a G.712 type handset) upon identification performance. In particular, three NSN types with varying signal to noise ratios (SNRs) were tested corresponding to street traffic, a bus interior, and a crowded talking environment. The performance evaluation also considered the effect of late fusion techniques based on score fusion, namely, mean, maximum, and linear weighted sum fusion. The databases employed were TIMIT, SITW, and NIST 2008; and 120 speakers were selected from each database to yield 3600 speech utterances. As recommendations from the study, mean fusion is found to yield overall best performance in terms of speaker identification accuracy (SIA) with noisy speech, whereas linear weighted sum fusion is overall best for original database recordings.
Original languageEnglish
Article number80
JournalEurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing
Volume2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Dec 2017

Keywords

  • Speaker identification system
  • TIMIT
  • SITW 2016 and NIST2008 databases
  • Noise and handset effects

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of a speaker identification system with and without fusion using three databases in the presence of noise and handset effects'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this