Sarah Hawkins (sh110@cam.ac.uk)
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:40:27 +0100 (BST)
I've indicated a few changes below. Sorry for the great delay in finishing
this.
Sarah
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Paul Carter wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Here are some draft minutes from yesterday. If you have any changes you
> would like me to make, please let me know as soon as possible. I'll aim
> to send out a decent copy on Friday.
>
> Paul
>
> ======================================================================
> Minutes of a ProSynth project meeting, UCL, 25.5.99
> ===================================================
>
> Present: Jill, Mark, Jana, Sarah, Sebastian, John, Paul.
> =======
>
>
> Matters arising from 18/19.3.99 minutes
> ======================================
>
> * JKL is working on rules for Procsy.
>
> * Laureate: BT need to know details of which bits of Laureate we need, and
> we need to sign the usual forms. Procsy is nearly capable of taking our
> rules but we will still get Laureate. Laureate may be hard to tune to our
> linguistic system. MH suggested that the best version to have might be
> for SunOS (perhaps also Windows).
>
> ***ACTION***: JKL will explore further and obtain Laureate with the aim of
> running it at each site.
>
>
> * York to regroup test stimuli by listening. Ideas for new tests not yet
> explored.
>
> ***ACTION***: York to continue this.
>
> * Procsy has been sent to York
AND UCL
>
> * Circulating non-ProSynth papers: some circulated, some not.
>
> ***ACTION***: Circulate papers if not already done so.
>
> * MH now has an account on the Cambridge SGIs.
>
> * CSL paper: submissions ongoing
>
> * XML features issues: MH has corrected earlier files and added stop
> releases
>
> * Web sites: more updates needed
>
> ***ACTION***: all sites to send progress reports and links to papers to
> PGC
>
> * Collaboration with Keller & Zellner: will be on an informal basis during
> their sabbatical in York.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Progress Reports
> ================
>
> Cambridge
> ---------
>
> (see document)
I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENTS THE MINUTES REFER TO.
>
> Feedback needed on high-level Procsy parameters: any improvements found to
> be passed on to Cambridge.
>
> ***ACTION***: MH to set up Procsy at UCL
>
> Procsy manual needs improving
WE DON;T KNOW IT NEEDS IMPROVING: WE'RE JUST TAKING SEBASTIAN'S WORD FOR
IT! HOW ABOUT "HASN;T BEEN TRIED OUT YET BUT PROBABLY NEEDS IMPROVING" ?
> ***ACTION***: all to pass on suggestions for improving the manual to
> Sebastian.
>
> Cambridge are revising some of their labelling due to inconsistencies.
AND ONE OR TWO OTHER BITS TOO
>
> A warning: when using Procsy, be very careful about durations of
> periodicity because of interactions between the parameters.
>
> MH suggested that one way forward might be to import formant and other
> control values into XML.
>
> There was discussion about whether real values should be used or analysis
> (eg x number of datapoints for vowel y).
>
> ***ACTION***: SH & SH to talk to JKL & RAO about locus equations and (less
> urgently) about the possibility of getting YorkTalk values.
>
AS i REMEMBER, PGC IS SUPPOSED TO SEND US THE LOCUS EQUATIONS YT USES! WE
NEED ONLY DISCUSS THEM IF NEED BE. (ALTERNATIVELY, WE COULD PERFECTLY WELL
USE OTHERS IN THE LIT OR FROM IVX, BUT YT WOULD BE BETTER BECUASE IVX
USES OVE RATHER THAN KLATT-TYPE SYNTHESIZER, AND OVE HAS AN IMPOVERISHED
FRICATIVE BRANCH SO SOME IVX LOCI ARE DISTINCT COMPROMISES. ALSO, I DON;T
THINK I'M ALLOWED TO LOOK THEM UP. AND IT'S POSSIBLE THE YT LOCI ARE
PARTICULARLY APPOSITE FOR YT TIMINGS, ETC (UNLESS THEY'RE JUST
KLATT'S / MITTALK'S LOCI?)
>
>
> York
> ----
>
> (see document)
>
> Sarah suggested subdividing the data by context (lingual versus labial).
> JKL suggested separating unstressed vowels in function/nonfunction words.
"THE DATA"? DID I? SORRY, I DON;T UNDERSTAND THIS.
>
> MH confirmed that the issues of multiple matching and empty structures
> should be solved by the use of ProXML. The prx interpreter has a switch
> '-n' which results in no XML output: using "output", durations can then be
> printed directly to stdout.
>
> **ACTION***: MH to give PGC examples of how to use ProXML in this way; PGC
> to feed back any problems.
>
> MH asked that ambisyllabic consonants should have identifiers to
> distinguish the first of a pair from the second (other than being in coda,
> onset positions)
>
> An aside: JKL asked MH about the possibility of obtaining means of OQ
> measurements from the database. This would also be very useful for
> Cambridge. Cambridge would like the following things:
>
> * mean OQ from the database,
OVER ALL VOICED PORTIONS OF VOWELS, OR VOWELS AND APPROXIMANTS IF THAT'S
JUST AS EASY.
SPLIT BY STRESS IF POSSIBLE.
[[ including all voiced portions (except inside
> stops), or maybe just vowels. Possibly split by stress.
>
]]
> * ultimately, an average time-aligned LX waveform in a window of 8 periods
> around obstruent boundaries, split by voicing of the obstruent.
MIGHT BE CLEARER AS "4 PERIODS ON EACH SIDE OF AN OBSTRUENT".
>
> Ideally, Cambridge would like a tool to enable them to specify this sort
> of request.
>
> ***ACTION***: in the short term, MH to put LX waveforms on the ftp site.
>
> Sarah Palmer's work on LX and boundaries (including ICSLP 92) is germane
> to this investigation.
>
> ***ACTION***: JH to hunt out relevant papers.
>
>
>
> UCL - Mark
> ----------
>
> (see document)
>
> point 2
>
> ***ACTION***: JH to tell MH how to mark AG boundaries etc.
>
> point 3
> newattribute() suppresses errors but doesn't update the DTD. This seems
> to be a problem with the Edinburgh tools.
>
> ***ACTION***: MH to take this up with Edinburgh.
>
>
>
> UCL - Jana
> ----------
>
> (no document)
>
> A finer classification of ONS than had been used in the ICPhS paper was
> examined with increased success of the model. Using onset duration to
> predict the peak was less successful. Relating peak onset time (PON) and
> peak offset time (POF) to rhyme was not as successful as relating them to
> the syllable. Vowel type seemed not to matter.
>
> However, expressing PON and POF as a proportion of the foot eliminated the
> rightward shift previously observed when the foot had a tail. There was
> still some sensitivity to the identity of the onset.
>
> NB So far, only short feet have been examined.
>
> JKL suggested eventually using CART techniques.
>
>
>
> Agenda Item 1.1
> ===============
>
> We are aiming to have something running on a PC in time for San Francisco
> (Cambridge will be taking a laptop).
>
> One possibility is to have PSOLA-manipulated waveforms of Mark's speech
> (especially using f0 and timing information) to be produced from text from
> a section / extension of the database. This might demonstrate that f0 and
> timing are not making naturalness worse (for example, timing could be
> compared to Festival timing). "Text in, synthesis out" to demonstrate
> that there is a model.
>
> The test set would need to be small, eg 5 sentences each of 5 structures.
>
> Device-independence could be demonstrated.
>
> ***ACTION***: York to produce a ProXML script for durations; UCL to
> produce one for f0.
>
> Also a demo of Procsy on a very small set of data. Deadline for this:
> mid-June; others: end of June.
>
> ***ACTION***: York to provide Cambridge with existing database files with
> York timings.
>
>
> Agenda Item 1.2
> ===============
>
> How & where to express PON, POF and LON in structure. PON is sensitive to
> onset type; POF is also sensitive to coda. JKL suggested percolating
> headed information. For the moment, FOOT seems to be the best level
> because of least variation, though other levels may be needed for POF.
> For now, will use the computationally easy solution. More is likely to
> fall out with further analysis.
>
> ***ACTION***: Jana to send data for peak and minimum f0 to Sebastian who
> will look at it with respect to peak/minimum subglottal pressure.
>
> ***ACTION***: Jana to send a copy of her document to Cambridge and York.
>
> ***ACTION***: JKL to contact York Computing Service to see if York has a
> PC site-licence for non-supported PCs to run SPSS (if so, give Cambridge
> access).
>
>
> Agenda Item 1.3
> ===============
>
> The 'meat' of the CSL paper should contain at least summaries of: the
> results from the perceptual testing, the (preliminary) intonation model
> (ICPhS paper plus results presented at this meeting), (preliminary) timing
> model.
>
> This is a "position paper with preliminary results".
>
>
> Agenda Item 1.4
> ===============
>
> No further perceptual testing on York material before San Francisco.
> Study of resonance will be limited to a production study on Mark, probably
> using centre of gravity as a measure.
>
> ***ACTION***: Cambridge to complete RT experiment for UCL data, getting up
> to 30 subjects.
>
>
> Agenda Item 1.5
> ===============
>
> See York list previously circulated. Items may be added based on Ali's
> findings.
>
> ***ACTION***: All sites to check this list and add in other items they
> might want. Circulate by 4.6.99.
>
> ***ACTION***: UCL to check there is an appropriate representation of
> segments (particularly in stressed syllables).
>
>
> Agenda Item 1.6
> ===============
>
> No objections in principle to RAs going part-time. JKL needs to discuss
> the issue with RAO. UCL will be looking for a replacement for Jana,
> checking regulations re the need to advertise. An approach would need to
> be made to EPSRC. Sebastian needs to work out what level of
> part-timedness would suit him.
>
>
> Agenda Item 2
> =============
>
> Hyperspeech, extending range of prosodic structures, function words (as
> previously discussed).
>
> ***ACTION***: all to flesh out minute 8 from 19.3.99 to reconstruct what
> we want for early September.
>
>
>
>
> Date of next meeting
> ====================
>
> 5th (or possibly 6th) July, 1999, by consultation with RAO. Sarah to
> check these dates are OK for her.
>
>
> ENDS
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jul 01 1999 - 10:41:58 BST