 Research Article
 Open Access
Independent Component Analysis and TimeFrequency Masking for Speech Recognition in Multitalker Conditions
 Dorothea Kolossa^{1}Email author,
 Ramon Fernandez Astudillo^{1},
 Eugen Hoffmann^{1} and
 Reinhold Orglmeister^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/651420
© Dorothea Kolossa et al. 2010
 Received: 25 September 2009
 Accepted: 1 April 2010
 Published: 10 May 2010
Abstract
When a number of speakers are simultaneously active, for example in meetings or noisy public places, the sources of interest need to be separated from interfering speakers and from each other in order to be robustly recognized. Independent component analysis (ICA) has proven a valuable tool for this purpose. However, ICA outputs can still contain strong residual components of the interfering speakers whenever noise or reverberation is high. In such cases, nonlinear postprocessing can be applied to the ICA outputs, for the purpose of reducing remaining interferences. In order to improve robustness to the artefacts and loss of information caused by this process, recognition can be greatly enhanced by considering the processed speech feature vector as a random variable with timevarying uncertainty, rather than as deterministic. The aim of this paper is to show the potential to improve recognition of multiple overlapping speech signals through nonlinear postprocessing together with uncertaintybased decoding techniques.
Keywords
 Independent Component Analysis
 Speech Recognition
 Independent Component Analysis
 Automatic Speech Recognition
 MFCC Feature
1. Introduction
When speech recognition is to be used in arbitrary, noisy environments, interfering speech poses significant problems due to the ovelapping spectra and nonstationarity. If automatic speech recognition (ASR) is nonetheless required, for example for robust voice control in public spaces or for meeting transcription, the use of independent component analysis (ICA) can be important to segregate all involved speech sources for subsequent recognition. In order to attain the best results, it is often helpful to apply an additional nonlinear gain function to the ICA output to suppress residual speech and noise. After a short introduction to ICA in Section 2, this paper shows in Section 3 how such nonlinear gain functions can be attained based on three different principal approaches.
However, while source separation itself is greatly improved by nonlinear postprocessing, speech recognition results often suffer from artefacts and loss in information due to such masks. In order to compensate for these losses and to obtain results exceeding those of ICA alone, we suggest the use of uncertaintyofobservation techniques for the subsequent speech recognition. This allows for the utilization of a feature uncertainty estimate, which can be derived considering both artefacts and incorrectly suppressed components of target speech, and will be described in more detail in Section 4. From such an uncertain description of the speech signal in the spectrum domain, uncertainties need to be made available also in the feature domain, in order to be used for recognition. This can be achieved by the socalled "uncertainty propagation," which converts an uncertain description of speech from the spectrum domain, where ICA takes place, to the feature domain of speech recognition. After this uncertainty propagation, detailed in Section 5, recognition can take place under observation uncertainty, as shown in Section 6.
The entire process is vitally dependent on the appropriate estimation of uncertainties. Results given in Section 8 show that when the exact uncertainty in the spectrum domain is known, recognition results with the suggested approach are far in excess of those achievable by ICA alone. Also, a realistically computable uncertainty estimate is introduced, and experiments and results given in Sections 7 and 8 show that with this practical uncertainty measure, significant improvements of recognition performance can be attained for noisy, reverberant room recordings.
The presented method is closely related to other works that consider observation vectors as uncertain for decoding purposes, most often for noisy speech recognition [1–4], but in some cases also for speech recognition in multitalker conditions, as, for example, [5, 6], or [7] in conjunction with speech segregation via binary masking (see, e.g. [8, 9]).
The main novelty in comparison with the above techniques is the use of independent component analysis in conjunction with uncertainty estimation and with a piecewise approach of transforming uncertainties to the feature domain of interest. This allows for the suggested approach to utilize the combined strengths of independent component analysis and soft timefrequency masking, and to still be used with a wide range of feature parameterizations, often without the need for recomputing the uncertainty mapping function to the desired ASRdomain. Corresponding results are shown here for both MFCC and RASTAPLP coefficients, but the discussed uncertainty transformation approach also generalizes well to the ETSI advanced front end, as shown in [10].
2. Independent Component Analysis for Reverberant Speech
Independent component analysis has been successfully employed for the separation of speech mixtures in both clean and noisy environments [11, 12]. Alternative methods include adaptive beamforming, which is closely related to independent component analysis when informationtheoretic cost functions are applied [13], sparsitybased methods that utilize amplitudedelay histograms [6, 8, 14], or grouping cues typical of human stream segregation [15]. Here, independent component analysis has been chosen due to its inherent robustness to noise and its ability to handle strong reverberation by frequencybyfrequency optimization of the cost function.
where the room impulse response from source to sensor is considered timeinvariant.
where is composed of the room transfer functions from all sources to the sensors , and is the sensor noise. Here, and denote the integervalued frequency bin index and frame index, respectively.
is the frequency bin at which the permutation problem has to be solved and denotes the frequency bin to be used as reference, and is a constant. For this strategy, ordering permutations first at higher frequencies and proceeding downward has proven beneficial; therefore, the ordering at the maximum frequency bin was chosen as reference, and sorting according to (8) took place binwise in descending order.
3. TimeFrequency Masking for ICA
However, an ideal mask is impossible to obtain realistically; thus, approximations to it are required. For obtaining such an approximation, mask estimation based on ICA results has been proposed and shown to be successful, both for binary and soft masks, see, for example, [17, 18, 20]. The motivation for this procedure lies both in the noiserobustness of ICA, which can therefore unmix signals even when large interferences make the estimation of a timefrequency mask extremely difficult, and also in the fact that ICA will unmix signals even in those timefrequency regions, where two or more of them are simultanously active to a significant extent.
 (i)
amplitudebased masks,
 (ii)
phasebased masks,
 (iii)
two types of interferencebased masks,
which will be described in the subsequent sections.
3.1. AmplitudeBased Masks
One of the simplest postmasks suitable for postprocessing of ICA results is based on comparing the magnitude of all ICA outputs [20]. Due to the sparsity of sources in an appropriate spectral representation [8], only one should be dominant; therefore, all others are discarded.
before the mask is computed.
where is the mask gain controlling its steepness.
3.2. PhaseBased Masks
The source separation performance of ICA can also be seen from a beamforming perspective. When the unmixing filters learned by ICA are viewed as frequencyvariant beamformers, it can be shown that successful ICA effectively places zeros in the directions of all interfering sources [23]. Therefore, the zero directions of the unmixing filters should be indicative of all source directions. Thus, when the local direction of arrival (DOA) is estimated from the phase of any one given timefrequency bin, this should give an indication of the dominant source in this bin. This is the principle underlying phasebased timefrequency masking strategies.
Phasebased postmasking of ICA outputs was introduced in [17]. In this method, the angle between the 'th target basis vector of the unmixing matrix and the microphone signal vector is used in order to determine whether and to what degree a given channel should be masked.
Here, denotes the 'th column of the mixing matrix, and is the value of source in frequency at frame .
where the estimated mixing matrix is given in terms of its constituent column vectors, . When comparing (18) and (2), and considering (3), it can be seen that the columns of correspond to the columns of , the matrix containing the values of the room transfer function for each frequency, up to an arbitrary scaling of column vectors and a reordering of sources, which is constant over frequencies after the permutation correction. Thus, in those timefrequency bins, where source is dominant, the associated basis vector should correspond to the column of the mixing matrix associated with source . In general, the index may be different from the index , due to possible permutations. However, as this change of indices will be consistent over frequency, it is disregarded in the following.
After the normalized basis vectors are thus available, masking is carried out based on the angle between the observed vector and the basis vector . This angle is computed in a whitened space, where and are premultiplied by the whitening matrix , which is the inverse square root of the sensor autocorrelation matrix, .
The parameter describes the steepness of the mask and is the transition point, where the mask takes on the value . More details on the mask computation can be found in [17].
3.3. InterferenceBased Masks
As an alternative criterion for masking, residual interference in the signal may be estimated and the mask may be computed as an MMSE estimator of the clean signal. This can be achieved with a number of approaches, two of which will be presented here in more detail.
3.3.1. EphraimMalah FilterBased PostFiltering
where is the amplitude estimator gain. For the calculation of the gain , different speech enhancement algorithms can be used. In the following, we are using the log spectral amplitude estimator (LSA) as proposed by Ephraim and Malah [24].
3.3.2. Inclusion of Speech Presence Probabilities
Here, and are parameters specifying the two threshold points and the mask gain, respectively.
4. Estimation of Uncertainties
Due to the use of timefrequency masking, part of the information of the original signal might be eliminated along with the interfering sources. To compensate for this lack of information, each masked estimated source is considered as uncertain and described in the form of a posterior distribution of each Fourier coefficient of the clean signal given the available information.
Estimating the uncertainty in the spectrum domain has clear advantages, when contrasted with uncertainty estimation in the domain of speech recognition, since much intermediate information about the signal and noise process as well as the mask is known in this phase of signal processing, but is generally not available in the further steps of feature extraction. This has motivated a number of studies on spectrum domain uncertainty estimation, most recently for example [7, 10]. In contrast to other methods, the suggested strategy possesses two advantages: it does not need a detailed spectrum domain speech prior, which may require a large number of components or may incur the need for adaptation to the speaker and environment; and it gives a computationally very inexpensive approximation that is applicable for both binary and soft masks.
where the mean is set equal to the Fourier coefficient obtained from postmasking and the variance represents the lack of information, or uncertainty. In order to determine , two alternative procedures were used.
4.1. Ideal Uncertainties
where is the reference signal. However, these ideal uncertainties are available only in experiments where a reference signal has been recorded. Thus, the ideal results may only serve as a perspective of what the suggested method would be capable of if a very high quality error estimate were already available.
4.2. Masking Error Estimate
In practice, it is necessary to approximate the ideal uncertainty estimate using values that are actually available. Since much of the estimation error is due to the timefrequency mask, in further experiments such a masking error was used as the single basis of the uncertainty measure.
In order to avoid adapting parameters to each of the test signals and masks, this minimization was carried out only once and only for a mixture not used in testing. After averaging over all mask types, the same value of was used in all experiments and for all datasets. This optimal value was .
5. Propagation of Uncertainties
When uncertain features are available in the STFT domain, they could in principle be used for spectrum domain speech recognition. However, as shown in [29], due to the less robust spectrum domain models, this does not provide for optimum results. Instead, a more successful approach is to transform the uncertain description of speech from the spectrum domain to the domain of speech recognition. This can in principle be achieved by two approaches, datadriven as in [7] or modeldriven as in [5]. In the following, we only consider the modeldriven approach, which can achieve very low propagation errors with small memory requirements and without the need for a training phase [10]. However, a detailed comparison of both principal methods remains an interesting target for future work.
In order to carry out the propagation through the feature extraction process, the uncertain spectrum domain description is considered as specifying speech as a random variable according to (35). If such an uncertain description of the STFT is used, the corresponding posterior distribution has to be propagated into the feature domain. For this purpose, the effect of all transformations in the feature extraction process on this probability distribution needs to be considered, which will result in an estimated feature domain random variable, describing both the mean of the speech features as well as the associated degree of uncertainty. Since this computation takes place for each feature and in each bin, subsequent recognition will have a maximally precise description of all uncertainties, allowing the algorithm to focus most on those features that are most reliable, and, if desired, to replace the uncertain ones by better estimates under simultaneous consideration of the recognizer speech model.
In conventional automatic speech recognition, only the STFT of each estimated source must be transformed into the feature domain of automatic speech recognition. Feature extractions involve multiple transformations, some of them nonlinear, which are performed jointly on multiple features of the same frame or by combining features from different time frames. Propagating an uncertain description of the STFT of each estimated source is therefore a complicated task that can be simplified by propagating only first and secondorder information. This section shows how this propagation can be attained by a piecewise approach in which the feature extraction is divided into different steps and the optimal method is chosen to perform uncertainty propagation in each step. Uncertainty propagation is used with two of the more robust speech recognition features, namely the Melcepstrum coefficients (MFCCs) [30] and the cepstral coefficients obtained from the RelAtive SpecTrAl Perceptual Linear Prediction (RASTAPLP) feature extraction [31], here denoted as RASTALPCCs.
5.1. MelCepstral Feature Extraction
 (1)
Extract the shorttime spectral amplitude (STSA) from the STFT.
 (2)
Compute each filter output of a Melfilterbank as a weighted sum of the STSA features of each frame.
 (3)
Apply the logarithm to each filter output.
 (4)
Compute the discrete cosine transform (DCT) from each frame of logfilterbank features.
In order to propagate random variables rather than deterministic signals, these steps were modified as follows.
Step corresponds to the computation of the logarithm. Since the distribution of the MelSTSA uncertain features has a relatively low skewness and the dimensionality of the features has been reduced by approximately one order of magnitude through the application of the Melfilterbank, the use of the pseudoMontecarlo method termed unscented transform [32] provides an acceptable tradeoff between accuracy and computational cost. Details regarding the use of the unscented transform for uncertainty propagation can be found in [28].
Step , the DCT transform, completes the computation of the MFCC coefficients. Since this is a linear transformation like the Melfilterbank, it can be computed according to (41).
5.2. Relative Spectral Perceptual Linear Prediction Feature Extraction
 (1)
Extract the power spectral density (PSD) from the STFT.
 (2)
Compute each filter output of a Barkfilterbank as a weighted sum of the PSD features of each frame.
 (3)
Apply the logarithm to each filter output.
 (4)
Filter the resulting frames with the RASTA IIR filter.
 (5)
Add the equal loudness curve and multiply by 0.33 to simulate the power law of hearing.
 (6)
Apply the exponential to invert the effect of the logarithm.
 (7)
Compute an allpole model of each frame to obtain the linear prediction coefficients (LPCs).
 (8)
Compute cepstral coefficients from each LPC frame.
Step which corresponds to the Barkfilterbank, can be resolved identically to the case of the Melfilterbank of the MFCCs by using (41).
Steps and correspond to conventional linear transformations in the logarithm domain, and therefore the propagation through them can be solved by applying (41) to obtain the means and covariances . Furthermore, since the assumption of lognormality in the BarkPSD domain implies that the logdomain features are normally distributed, RASTA, preemphasis, and powerlaw transformations do not alter this condition.
The final steps of the RASTALPCC feature extraction, Steps and correspond to the computation of the allpole model to obtain the LPC coefficients, described in the conventional PLP technique [35], and the computation of the cepstral coefficients from the LPCs using [30, equation 3] Due to the complex nature of these transformations and the low skewness of the uncertain features after the exponential transformation, the propagation is computed using the unscented transform, similarly to the case of the logarithm transformation for the Melcepstral features.
6. Recognition of Uncertain Features
When features for speech recognition are given not as point estimates, but rather in the form of a posterior distribution with estimated mean and covariance the speech decoder must be modified in order to take this additional information into account. A number of approaches exist, both for binary and for continuousvalued uncertainties, for example, [2, 36, 37].
Here, two missing feature approaches were applied, which are capable of considering realvalued uncertainties. These methods, modified imputation [5] and HMM variance compensation [2], have been implemented for the Hidden Markov Model Toolkit (HTK) [38] and were used in the tests.
Both methods are appropriate for HMMbased systems, where recognition takes place by finding the optimum HMM state sequence , which gives the best match to the feature vector sequence when each HMM state has an associated output probability distribution .
6.1. HMM Variance Compensation
for an component mixture model with weights .
6.2. Modified Imputation
can be obtained. This estimate is used to evaluate the pdf of the HMM state at time , as in conventional recognition or classical imputation.
where stands for the mixture weight of component . This, again, is analogous to the process in conventional recognition or classical imputation.
7. Experiments
7.1. Room Recordings
Mixture description.
Mixture  Mix. 1  Mix. 2  Mix. 3 

Number of speakers  2  3  2 
Speaker Codes  ar,ed  pg,ed,cp  fm,pg 
Distance between speaker and array center 

m  m m 
Angular position of the speaker (as shown in Figure 4) 






Mixture description.
Mixture  Mix. 4  Mix. 5 

Number of speakers  2  3 
Speaker Codes  cp,ed  fm,ga,ed 
Distance between speaker and array center 
m 
m 
Angular position of the speaker (as shown in Figure 4) 



 

7.2. Model Training
The HMM speech recognizer was trained with the HTK toolkit [38]. The trained HMMs comprised phonemelevel models with 6component MOG emitting probabilities and a conventional leftright structure. The training data was mixed and it comprised the 114 speakers of the TIDIGITS clean speech database along with the room recordings for speakers sa and rk used for adaptation. Speakers used for adaptation were removed from the test set. The feature extractions presented in Section 5 were also complemented with cepstral mean subtraction (CMS) for further reduction of convolutive effects. Since CMS is a linear operation, it poses no additional difficulty for uncertainty propagation.
7.3. Parameter Settings of TimeFrequency Masks
Parameters of all masks were set manually for good performance on all datasets, and were kept consistent throughout all experiments.
7.3.1. AmplitudeBased Masking
For amplitudebased masking, a soft mask according to (14) and (16) was used. Thus, there are two parameters, the mask threshold and the gain , which were set to and , respectively.
7.3.2. PhaseBased Masking
In phasebased masking according to (22), there are two free parameters as well, again a mask gain and also a mask threshold, the angle threshold . However, optimum performance was reached for different parameter values depending on the recognizer parameterization. For optimal performance on MFCC features, they were set to and , which will be refered to as Phase1 in the results. In contrast, for RASTAPLPbased recognition, better results were generally achieved with and (Phase2), that is, the same threshold but less steep of a mask gain.
7.3.3. InterferenceBased Masking
For the first interferencebased mask, defined in Section 3.3.1, the two smoothing parameters defining the algorithm are set to and . This algorithm will be denoted by IB in the following.
The second interferencebased algorithm additionally includes the speech probability estimate defined in Section 3.3.2. Thus, in addition to the parameters and , there are additional parameters in the weighting function (34). These are and , parameters specifying the two threshold points and the mask gain. They are defined to correspond to the mean absolute value of the estimated signal Fourier coefficients , the mean absolute value of the noise estimate Fourier coefficient ; and the mask gain is set to . For windowing in (33), a Hanning window of size is used. For this algorithm, the abbreviation IBPE will be used.
8. Results
8.1. Recognition Performance Measurement
The value of , output by the HTK scoring tool, corresponds with , where is the word error rate that is also commonly used in the evaluation of speech recognition performance.
8.2. Multispeaker Recognition Results
Word accuracy (WA) of ASR tests for RASTAPLP features, estimated uncertainties. Here, the algorithms Phase1 and Phase2 utilize the parameters defined in Section 7.3.2, the entries with the heading Amplitude correspond with the mask given in Section 7.3.1, and the two interferencebased strategies IB and IBPE are specified in Section 7.3.3. The two robust recognition strategies are abbreviated by MI for modified imputation and UD for uncertainty decoding.
Phase1  Phase2  Amplitude  IB  IBPE  

No. of speakers  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3 
no ICA  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3 
only ICA  58.0  48.0  63.1  52.7  63.1  52.7  63.1  52.7  63.1  52.7 
 15.1  16.7  16.4  17.1  52.1  51.9  02.2  00.9  38.9  30.7 
 52.8  50.7  66.0  59.1  67.2  60.3  66.0  56.5  67.7  59.5 
 60.0  58.0  73.4  69.1  72.9  68.8  71.4  67.1  72.9  69.2 
Word accuracy (WA) of ASR tests for MFCC features, estimated uncertainties.
Phase1  Phase2  Amplitude  IB  IBPE  

No. of speakers  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3 
no ICA  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2 
only ICA  69.9  67.4  70.0  68.6  70.0  68.6  70.0  68.6  70.0  68.6 
 03.5  03.7  03.3  03.6  62.1  60.6  04.3  04.2  38.7  35.7 
 72.9  73.2  75.2  73.7  74.2  72.5  75.1  73.7  76.7  74.7 
 72.3  75.4  71.4  70.7  70.0  68.9  69.9  70.1  72.0  72.2 
Word accuracy (WA) of ASR tests for RASTAPLP features, true uncertainties.
Phase1  Phase2  Amplitude  IB  IBPE  

No. of speakers  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3 
no ICA  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3  31.4  6.3 
only ICA  58.0  48.0  63.1  52.7  63.1  52.7  63.1  52.7  63.1  52.7 
ICA + Mask  15.1  16.7  16.4  17.1  52.1  51.9  02.2  00.9  38.9  30.7 
ICA + Mask + UD  82.7  76.1  88.0  83.7  81.2  74.0  91.5  84.5  86.2  75.3 
ICA + Mask + MI  86.7  80.6  89.8  86.3  85.6  79.0  92.6  88.3  89.5  82.9 
Word accuracy (WA) of ASR tests for MFCC features, true uncertainties.
Phase1  Phase2  Amplitude  IB  IBPE  

No. of speakers  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3  2  3 
no ICA  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2  37.7  17.2 
only ICA  69.9  67.4  70.5  68.6  70.5  68.6  70.5  68.6  70.5  68.6 
 03.5  03.7  03.3  03.6  62.1  60.6  04.3  04.2  38.7  35.7 
 89.9  82.3  91.3  88.6  89.6  83.8  93.9  89.6  92.8  88.1 
 90.3  87.4  89.5  87.3  87.0  83.4  90.3  88.2  92.1  87.5 
Similar performance gains can be observed in the case of MFCC features, where word error rates can be reduced by 64% and 62% for uncertainty decoding and modified imputation, respectively. Comparing the uncertain recognition strategies, again, modified imputation is on average the better performer for RASTAPLPs, whereas uncertainty decoding leads to better performance gains for MFCCs. Concerning the masking strategies, it is clear that the IBmask, which has fairly aggressive parameter settings and an extremely low recognition rate without missing feature approaches, is the best for this case of ideal uncertainties.
9. Conclusion
An overview of the use of independent component analysis for speech recognition under multitalker conditions has been given. As shown by the presented results, the conventional strategy of purely linear source separation can be improved by postmasking in the timefrequency domain, if this is accompanied by missingfeature speech recognition. Especially for threespeaker scenarios, this improves the recognition rate notably. Interestingly, the optimal decoding strategy is apparently dependent on the features that are used for recognition. Whereas modified imputation was clearly superior for RASTA features, better results for MFCC features have almost consistently been achieved by uncertainty decoding, even though uncertainties were estimated in the spectrum domain for both features and propagated to the recognition domain of interest. Further work will be necessary to determine how these results correspond to the degree of model mismatch in both domains, with the aim of determining an optimal decoding strategy depending on specific application scenarios.
A vital aspect of missing feature recognition is still the estimation of the feature uncertainty. Here, an ideal uncertainty estimate will result in superior recognition performance for all considered test cases and all applied post masks. Since such an ideal uncertainty is not available in practice, the value needs to be estimated from available data. In the presented cases, this measure has been derived from the ICA output signal and the applied nonlinear gain function. The resulting uncertainty estimate has a correlation coefficient of 0.45 with the true uncertainties, leading to superior and consistent performance among all tested uncertainty estimates.
However, uncertainty estimation for the ICA output signals should be improved further, in order to approximate more closely the ideally achievable performance of this strategy. For this purpose, it will be interesting to compare the proposed uncertainty estimation to other approaches. Specifically, the uncertainty estimation described in [7] is of interest for use with any type of recognition feature and preprocessing method, but it requires learning of a regression tree for the given specific feature set and environment. In contrast, featurespecific methods described for example in [2, 3] are applicable only to the feature domain they have been derived for, but can be used without the need for additional training stages.
Since none of the above methods is designed specifically for use with ICA, another direction of research is a better use of the statistical information gathered during source separation. Further research can thus focus on an optimal use of this intermediate data, and on its combination with more detailed prior models in the spectrum domain, as those in [29], for arriving at more accurate uncertainty estimates which utilize all avaliable data from multiple microphones.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Kristjansson TT, Frey BJ: Accounting for uncertainty in observations: a new paradigm for robust automatic speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '02), 2002Google Scholar
 Deng L, Droppo J, Acero A: Dynamic compensation of HMM variances using the feature enhancement uncertainty computed from a parametric model of speech distortion. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 2005, 13(3):412421.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Stouten V, Van Hamme H, Wambacq P: Application of minimum statistics and minima controlled recursive averaging methods to estimate a cepstral noise model for robust ASR. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '06), May 2006 1:Google Scholar
 Van Segbroeck M, Van Hamme H: Robust speech recognition using missing data techniques in the prospect domain and fuzzy masks. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '08), 2008 43934396.Google Scholar
 Kolossa D, Klimas A, Orglmeister R: Separation and robust recognition of noisy, convolutive speech mixtures using timefrequency masking and missing data techniques. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA '05), 2005 8285.Google Scholar
 Kühne M, Togneri R, Nordholm S: Timefrequency masking: linking blind source separation and robust speech recognition. In Speech Recognition: Technologies and Applications. INTECH, Vienna, Austria; 2008:6180.Google Scholar
 Srinivasan S, Wang D: Transforming binary uncertainties for robust speech recognition. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing 2007, 15(7):21302140.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yilmaz Ö, Rickard S: Blind separation of speech mixtures via timefrequency masking. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 2004, 52(7):18301847. 10.1109/TSP.2004.828896MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Brown G, Wang D: Separation of speech by computational auditory scene analysis. In Speech Enhancement. Edited by: Benesty J, Makino S, Chen J. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 2005:371402.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Astudillo RF, Kolossa D, Mandelartz P, Orglmeister R: An uncertainty propagation approach to robust ASR using the ETSI advanced frontend. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing. In pressGoogle Scholar
 Buchner H, Aichner R, Kellermann W: TRINICON: a versatile framework for multichannel blind signal processing. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '04), 2004 3: 889892.Google Scholar
 Makino S, Lee TW, Sawada H (Eds): Blind Speech Separation. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 2007.Google Scholar
 Kumatani K, McDonough J, Klakow D, Garner PN, Li W: Adaptive beamforming with a maximum negentropy criterion. Proceedings of the HandsFree Speech Communication and Microphone Arrays (HSCMA '08), January 2008, Trento, Italy 180183.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Roman N, Wang D, Brown GJ: Speech segregation based on sound localization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 114(4 I):22362252.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Brown GJ, Cooke M: Computational auditory scene analysis. Computer Speech and Language 1994, 8(4):297336. 10.1006/csla.1994.1016View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cichocki A, Amari S: Adaptive Blind Signal and Image Processing. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA; 2002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Sawada H, Araki S, Mukai R, Makino S: Blind extraction of dominant target sources using ICA and timefrequency masking. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing 2006, 14(6):21652173.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hoffmann E, Kolossa D, Orglmeister R: A batch algorithm for blind source separation of acoustic signals using ICA and timefrequency masking. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation (ICA '07), 2007, London, UK 480487.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kamata K, Hu X, Kobatake H: A new approach to the permutation problem in frequency domain blind source separation. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Independent Component Analysis and Blind Signal Separation (ICA '04), September 2004, Granada, Spain 849856.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kolossa D, Orglmeister R: Nonlinear postprocessing for blind speech separation. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation (ICA '04), 2004, Granada, Spain 832839.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Pedersen MS, Wang D, Larsen J, Kjems U: Overcomplete blind source separation by combining ICA and binary timefrequency masking. Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, September 2005 1520.Google Scholar
 Kolossa D: Independent component analysis for environmentally robust speech recognition, Ph.D. dissertation. TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 2007.Google Scholar
 Araki S, Makino S, Hinamoto Y, Mukai R, Nishikawa T, Saruwatari H: Equivalence between frequencydomain blind source separation and frequencydomain adaptive beamforming for convolutive mixtures. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2003, 2003(11):11571166. 10.1155/S1110865703305074MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ephraim Y, Malah D: Speech enhancement using a minimum meansquare errorlogspectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1985, 33(2):443445. 10.1109/TASSP.1985.1164550View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cohen I: Optimal speech enhancement under signal presence uncertainty using logspectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 2002, 9(4):113116. 10.1109/97.1001645View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cohen I: On speech enhancement under signal presence uncertainty. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '01), May 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 167170.Google Scholar
 Ephraim Y, Cohen I: Recent advancements in speech enhancement. In The Electrical Engineering Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA; 2006.Google Scholar
 Astudillo RF, Kolossa D, Orglmeister R: Propagation of statistical information through nonlinear feature extractions for robust speech recognition. Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering (MaxEnt '07), November 2007 954: 245252.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Raj B, Seltzer ML, Stern RM: Reconstruction of missing features for robust speech recognition. Speech Communication 2004, 43(4):275296. 10.1016/j.specom.2004.03.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Davis SB, Mermelstein P: Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1980, 28(4):357366. 10.1109/TASSP.1980.1163420View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hermansky H, Morgan N: RASTA processing of speech. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 1994, 2(4):578589. 10.1109/89.326616View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Julier S, Uhlmann J: A general method for approximating nonlinear transformations of probability distributions. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 1996.Google Scholar
 Astudillo RF, Kolossa D, Orglmeister R: Uncertainty propagation for speech recognition using RASTA features in highly nonstationary noisy environments. Proceedings of the Workshop for Speech Communication (ITG '08), 2008Google Scholar
 Gales M: Modelbased techniques for noise robust speech recognition, Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK; 1996.Google Scholar
 Hermansky H, Hanson BA, Wakita H: Perceptually based linear predictive analysis of speech. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '85), 1985 509512.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Barker J, Green P, Cooke M: Linking auditory scene analysis and robust ASR by missing data techniques. Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovation in Speech Processing (WISP '01), 2001Google Scholar
 Arrowood J, Clements M: Using observation uncertainty in HMM decoding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP '02), 2002Google Scholar
 Young S: The HTK Book (for HTK Version 3.4). Cambridge University, Engineering DepartmentGoogle Scholar
 Leonard RG: Database for speakerindependent digit recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '84), 1984 3:Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.