Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. Kochanski, G.; Grabe, E.; Coleman, J. S; and Rosner, B. S The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(2):1038-1054.
doi  abstract   bibtex   
We explored a database covering seven dialects of British and Irish English and three different styles of speech to find acoustic correlates of prominence. We built classifiers, trained the classifiers on human prominence/nonprominence judgments, and then evaluated how well they behaved. The classifiers operate on 452 ms windows centered on syllables, using different acoustic measures. By comparing the performance of classifiers based on different measures, we can learn how prominence is expressed in speech. Contrary to textbooks and common assumption, fundamental frequency (f0) played a minor role in distinguishing prominent syllables from the rest of the utterance. Instead, speakers primarily marked prominence with patterns of loudness and duration. Two other acoustic measures that we examined also played a minor role, comparable to f0. All dialects and speaking styles studied here share a common definition of prominence. The result is robust to differences in labeling practice and the dialect of the labeler. © 2005 Acoustical Society of America.
@article{kochanski_loudness_2005,
	Author = {Kochanski, Greg and Grabe, Esther and Coleman, John S and Rosner, Burton S},
	Date = {2005},
	Date-Modified = {2017-04-19 08:04:07 +0000},
	Doi = {10.1121/1.1923349},
	Issn = {00014966},
	Journal = {The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America},
	Keywords = {English, f0, intensity, lexical stress, phonetics, prosody, speech perception},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {1038-1054},
	Title = {Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little},
	Volume = {118},
	Abstract = {We explored a database covering seven dialects of British and Irish English and three different styles of speech to find acoustic correlates of prominence. We built classifiers, trained the classifiers on human prominence/nonprominence judgments, and then evaluated how well they behaved. The classifiers operate on 452 ms windows centered on syllables, using different acoustic measures. By comparing the performance of classifiers based on different measures, we can learn how prominence is expressed in speech. Contrary to textbooks and common assumption, fundamental frequency (f0) played a minor role in distinguishing prominent syllables from the rest of the utterance. Instead, speakers primarily marked prominence with patterns of loudness and duration. Two other acoustic measures that we examined also played a minor role, comparable to f0. All dialects and speaking styles studied here share a common definition of prominence. The result is robust to differences in labeling practice and the dialect of the labeler. © 2005 Acoustical Society of America.},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/118/2/10.1121/1.1923349},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1923349}}
Downloads: 0