Segmentation and Recognition of Multi-Food Meal Images for Carbohydrate Counting

In this paper, we propose novel methodologies for the automatic segmentation and recognition of multi-food images. The proposed methods implement the first modules of a carbohydrate counting and insulin advisory system for type 1 diabetic patients. Initially the plate is segmented using pyramidal mean-shift filtering and a region growing algorithm. Then each of the resulted segments is described by both color and texture features and classified by a support vector machine into one of six different major food classes. Finally, a modified version of the Huang and Dom evaluation index was proposed, addressing the particular needs of the food segmentation problem. The experimental results prove the effectiveness of the proposed method achieving a segmentation accuracy of 88.5% and recognition rate equal to 87%

Automatic identification of discourse markers in dialogues: An in-depth study of like and well

The lexical items like and well can serve as discourse markers (DMs), but can also play numerous other roles, such as verb or adverb. Identifying the occurrences that function as DMs is an important step for language understanding by computers. In this study, automatic classifiers using lexical, prosodic/positional and sociolinguistic features are trained over transcribed dialogues, manually annotated with DM information. The resulting classifiers improve state-of-the-art performance of DM identification, at about 90% recall and 79% precision for like (84.5% accuracy, κ = 0.69), and 99% recall and 98% precision for well (97.5% accuracy, κ = 0.88). Automatic feature analysis shows that lexical collocations are the most reliable indicators, followed by prosodic/positional features, while sociolinguistic features are marginally useful for the identification of DM like and not useful for well. The differentiated processing of each type of DM improves classification accuracy, suggesting that these types should be treated individually.

Towards Automatic Identification of Discourse Markers in Dialogs: the Case of 'Like'

This article discusses the detection of discourse markers (DM) in dialog transcriptions, by human annotators and by automated means. After a theoretical discussion of the definition of DMs and their relevance to natural language processing, we focus on the role of like as a DM. Results from experiments with human annotators show that detection of DMs is a difficult but reliable task, which requires prosodic information from soundtracks. Then, several types of features are defined for automatic disambiguation of like: collocations, part-of-speech tags and duration-based features. Decision-tree learning shows that for like, nearly 70% precision can be reached, with near 100% recall, mainly using collocation filters. Similar results hold for well, with about 91% precision at 100% recall.

Automatic Categorization for Improving Spanish into Spanish Sign Language Machine Translation

This paper describes a preprocessing module for improving the performance of a Spanish into Spanish Sign Language (Lengua de Signos Espanola: LSE) translation system when dealing with sparse training data. This preprocessing module replaces Spanish words with associated tags. The list with Spanish words (vocabulary) and associated tags used by this module is computed automatically considering those signs that show the highest probability of being the translation of every Spanish word. This automatic tag extraction has been compared to a manual strategy achieving almost the same improvement. In this analysis, several alternatives for dealing with non-relevant words have been studied. Non-relevant words are Spanish words not assigned to any sign. The preprocessing module has been incorporated into two well-known statistical translation architectures: a phrase-based system and a Statistical Finite State Transducer (SFST). This system has been developed for a specific application domain: the renewal of Identity Documents and Driver's License. In order to evaluate the system a parallel corpus made up of 4080 Spanish sentences and their LSE translation has been used. The evaluation results revealed a significant performance improvement when including this preprocessing module. In the phrase-based system, the proposed module has given rise to an increase in BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) from 73.8% to 81.0% and an increase in the human evaluation score from 0.64 to 0.83. In the case of SFST, BLEU increased from 70.6% to 78.4% and the human evaluation score from 0.65 to 0.82.

A speech interface for air traffic control terminals

Several issues concerning the current use of speech interfaces are discussed and the design and development of a speech interface that enables air traffic controllers to command and control their terminals by voice is presented. A special emphasis is made in the comparison between laboratory experiments and field experiments in which a set of ergonomics-related effects are detected that cannot be observed in the controlled laboratory experiments. The paper presents both objective and subjective performance obtained in field evaluation of the system with student controllers at an air traffic control (ATC) training facility. The system exhibits high word recognition test rates (0.4% error in Spanish and 1.5% in English) and low command error (6% error in Spanish and 10.6% error in English in the field tests). Subjective impression has also been positive, encouraging future development and integration phases in the Spanish ATC terminals designed by Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (AENA).

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

Statistical Machine Learning for Automatic Assessment of Physical Activity Intensity Using Multi-axial Accelerometry and Heart Rate

This work explores the automatic recognition of physical activity intensity patterns from multi-axial accelerometry and heart rate signals. Data collection was carried out in free-living conditions and in three controlled gymnasium circuits, for a total amount of 179.80 h of data divided into: sedentary situations (65.5%), light-to-moderate activity (17.6%) and vigorous exercise (16.9%). The proposed machine learning algorithms comprise the following steps: time-domain feature definition, standardization and PCA projection, unsupervised clustering (by k-means and GMM) and a HMM to account for long-term temporal trends. Performance was evaluated by 30 runs of a 10-fold cross-validation. Both k-means and GMM-based approaches yielded high overall accuracy (86.97% and 85.03%, respectively) and, given the imbalance of the dataset, meritorious F-measures (up to 77.88%) for non-sedentary cases. Classification errors tended to be concentrated around transients, what constrains their practical impact. Hence, we consider our proposal to be suitable for 24 h-based monitoring of physical activity in ambulatory scenarios and a first step towards intensity-specific energy expenditure estimators

A Satisfaction-based Model for Affect Recognition from Conversational Features in Spoken Dialog Systems

Detecting user affect automatically during real-time conversation is the main challenge towards our greater aim of infusing social intelligence into a natural-language mixed-initiative High-Fidelity (Hi-Fi) audio control spoken dialog agent. In recent years, studies on affect detection from voice have moved on to using realistic, non-acted data, which is subtler. However, it is more challenging to perceive subtler emotions and this is demonstrated in tasks such as labelling and machine prediction. This paper attempts to address part of this challenge by considering the role of user satisfaction ratings and also conversational/dialog features in discriminating contentment and frustration, two types of emotions that are known to be prevalent within spoken human-computer interaction. However, given the laboratory constraints, users might be positively biased when rating the system, indirectly making the reliability of the satisfaction data questionable. Machine learning experiments were conducted on two datasets, users and annotators, which were then compared in order to assess the reliability of these datasets. Our results indicated that standard classifiers were significantly more successful in discriminating the abovementioned emotions and their intensities (reflected by user satisfaction ratings) from annotator data than from user data. These results corroborated that: first, satisfaction data could be used directly as an alternative target variable to model affect, and that they could be predicted exclusively by dialog features. Second, these were only true when trying to predict the abovementioned emotions using annotator?s data, suggesting that user bias does exist in a laboratory-led evaluation.

Patrol team language identification system for DARPA RATS P1 evaluation

This paper describes the language identification (LID) system developed by the Patrol team for the first phase of the DARPA RATS (Robust Automatic Transcription of Speech) program, which seeks to advance state of the art detection capabilities on audio from highly degraded communication channels. We show that techniques originally developed for LID on telephone speech (e.g., for the NIST language recognition evaluations) remain effective on the noisy RATS data, provided that careful consideration is applied when designing the training and development sets. In addition, we show significant improvements from the use of Wiener filtering, neural network based and language dependent i-vector modeling, and fusion.

Phonotactic language recognition using i-vectors and phoneme posteriogram counts

This paper describes a novel approach to phonotactic LID, where instead of using soft-counts based on phoneme lattices, we use posteriogram to obtain n-gram counts. The high-dimensional vectors of counts are reduced to low-dimensional units for which we adapted the commonly used term i-vectors. The reduction is based on multinomial subspace modeling and is designed to work in the total-variability space. The proposed technique was tested on the NIST 2009 LRE set with better results to a system based on using soft-counts (Cavg on 30s: 3.15% vs 3.43%), and with very good results when fused with an acoustic i-vector LID system (Cavg on 30s acoustic 2.4% vs 1.25%). The proposed technique is also compared with another low dimensional projection system based on PCA. In comparison with the original soft-counts, the proposed technique provides better results, reduces the problems due to sparse counts, and avoids the process of using pruning techniques when creating the lattices.

Towards glottal source controllability in expressive speech synthesis

In order to obtain more human like sounding humanmachine interfaces we must first be able to give them expressive capabilities in the way of emotional and stylistic features so as to closely adequate them to the intended task. If we want to replicate those features it is not enough to merely replicate the prosodic information of fundamental frequency and speaking rhythm. The proposed additional layer is the modification of the glottal model, for which we make use of the GlottHMM parameters. This paper analyzes the viability of such an approach by verifying that the expressive nuances are captured by the aforementioned features, obtaining 95% recognition rates on styled speaking and 82% on emotional speech. Then we evaluate the effect of speaker bias and recording environment on the source modeling in order to quantify possible problems when analyzing multi-speaker databases. Finally we propose a speaking styles separation for Spanish based on prosodic features and check its perceptual significance.

Architecture for Text Sign Localization and Recognition

This paper describes a low complexity strategy for detecting and recognizing text signs automatically. Traditional approaches use large image algorithms for detecting the text sign, followed by the application of an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) algorithm in the previously identified areas. This paper proposes a new architecture that applies the OCR to a whole lightly treated image and then carries out the text detection process of the OCR output. The strategy presented in this paper significantly reduces the processing time required for text localization in an image, while guaranteeing a high recognition rate. This strategy will facilitate the incorporation of video processing-based applications into the automatic detection of text sign similar to that of a smartphone. These applications will increase the autonomy of visually impaired people in their daily life.

Low-resource language recognition using a fusion of phoneme posteriorgram counts, acoustic and glottal-based i-vectors

This paper presents a description of our system for the Albayzin 2012 LRE competition. One of the main characteristics of this evaluation was the reduced number of available files for training the system, especially for the empty condition where no training data set was provided but only a development set. In addition, the whole database was created from online videos and around one third of the training data was labeled as noisy files. Our primary system was the fusion of three different i-vector based systems: one acoustic system based on MFCCs, a phonotactic system using trigrams of phone-posteriorgram counts, and another acoustic system based on RPLPs that improved robustness against noise. A contrastive system that included new features based on the glottal source was also presented. Official and postevaluation results for all the conditions using the proposed metrics for the evaluation and the Cavg metric are presented in the paper.

Evaluation of a transplantation algorithm for expressive speech synthesis

When designing human-machine interfaces it is important to consider not only the bare bones functionality but also the ease of use and accessibility it provides. When talking about voice-based inter- faces, it has been proven that imbuing expressiveness into the synthetic voices increases signi?cantly its perceived naturalness, which in the end is very helpful when building user friendly interfaces. This paper proposes an adaptation based expressiveness transplantation system capable of copying the emotions of a source speaker into any desired target speaker with just a few minutes of read speech and without requiring the record- ing of additional expressive data. This system was evaluated through a perceptual test for 3 speakers showing up to an average of 52% emotion recognition rates relative to the natural voice recognition rates, while at the same time keeping good scores in similarity and naturality.

GMM-based classifiers for the automatic detection of obstructive sleep apnea

The aim of automatic pathological voice detection systems is to serve as tools, to medical specialists, for a more objective, less invasive and improved diagnosis of diseases. In this respect, the gold standard for those system include the usage of a optimized representation of the spectral envelope, either based on cepstral coefficients from the mel-scaled Fourier spectral envelope (Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients) or from an all-pole estimation (Linear Prediction Coding Cepstral Coefficients) forcharacterization, and Gaussian Mixture Models for posterior classification. However, the study of recently proposed GMM-based classifiers as well as Nuisance mitigation techniques, such as those employed in speaker recognition, has not been widely considered inpathology detection labours. The present work aims at testing whether or not the employment of such speaker recognition tools might contribute to improve system performance in pathology detection systems, specifically in the automatic detection of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. The testing procedure employs an Obstructive Sleep Apnea database, in conjunction with GMM-based classifiers looking for a better performance. The results show that an improved performance might be obtained by using such approach.