Loading…

Normalization of nonlinearly time-dynamic vowels

This study compares 16 vowel-normalization methods for purposes of sociophonetic research. Most of the previous work in this domain has focused on the performance of normalization methods on steady-state vowels. By contrast, this study explicitly considers dynamic formant trajectories, using general...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2022-11, Vol.152 (5), p.2692-2710
Main Authors: Voeten, Cesko C., Heeringa, Wilbert, Van de Velde, Hans
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3
container_end_page 2710
container_issue 5
container_start_page 2692
container_title The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
container_volume 152
creator Voeten, Cesko C.
Heeringa, Wilbert
Van de Velde, Hans
description This study compares 16 vowel-normalization methods for purposes of sociophonetic research. Most of the previous work in this domain has focused on the performance of normalization methods on steady-state vowels. By contrast, this study explicitly considers dynamic formant trajectories, using generalized additive models to model these nonlinearly. Normalization methods were compared using a hand-corrected dataset from the Flemish-Dutch Teacher Corpus, which contains 160 speakers from 8 geographical regions, who spoke regionally accented versions of Netherlandic/Flemish Standard Dutch. Normalization performance was assessed by comparing the methods' abilities to remove anatomical variation, retain vowel distinctions, and explain variation in the normalized F0–F3. In addition, it was established whether normalization competes with by-speaker random effects or supplements it, by comparing how much between-speaker variance remained to be apportioned to random effects after normalization. The results partly reproduce the good performance of Lobanov, Gerstman, and Nearey 1 found earlier and generally favor log-mean and centroid methods. However, newer methods achieve higher effect sizes (i.e., explain more variance) at only marginally worse performances. Random effects were found to be equally useful before and after normalization, showing that they complement it. The findings are interpreted in light of the way that the different methods handle formant dynamics.
doi_str_mv 10.1121/10.0015025
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2746390329</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2746390329</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEURYMotlY3_gCZpSij-Z5kKcUvKLrR9ZBOEohkJjWZVqa_3tRWcaObd3mPw-VxADhF8AohjK5zQogYxGwPjBHDsBQM030whvlcUsn5CByl9JZXJog8BCPCKeNY4DGATyG2yru16l3oimCLLnTedUZFPxS9a02ph061rilW4cP4dAwOrPLJnOxyAl7vbl-mD-Xs-f5xejMrGyJZX3KEpZZYMA1tI7iGlDBIrbKVIJjYCov8C0eMcisZgUiZSpl803moeWXIBJxvexcxvC9N6uvWpcZ4rzoTlqnGFeVEQoJlRi-2aBNDStHYehFdq-JQI1hvDG1yZyjDZ7ve5bw1-gf9VpKByy2QGtd_Wfm_7k96FeIvsl5oSz4BoyN6xg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2746390329</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Normalization of nonlinearly time-dynamic vowels</title><source>American Institute of Physics:Jisc Collections:Transitional Journals Agreement 2021-23 (Reading list)</source><creator>Voeten, Cesko C. ; Heeringa, Wilbert ; Van de Velde, Hans</creator><creatorcontrib>Voeten, Cesko C. ; Heeringa, Wilbert ; Van de Velde, Hans</creatorcontrib><description>This study compares 16 vowel-normalization methods for purposes of sociophonetic research. Most of the previous work in this domain has focused on the performance of normalization methods on steady-state vowels. By contrast, this study explicitly considers dynamic formant trajectories, using generalized additive models to model these nonlinearly. Normalization methods were compared using a hand-corrected dataset from the Flemish-Dutch Teacher Corpus, which contains 160 speakers from 8 geographical regions, who spoke regionally accented versions of Netherlandic/Flemish Standard Dutch. Normalization performance was assessed by comparing the methods' abilities to remove anatomical variation, retain vowel distinctions, and explain variation in the normalized F0–F3. In addition, it was established whether normalization competes with by-speaker random effects or supplements it, by comparing how much between-speaker variance remained to be apportioned to random effects after normalization. The results partly reproduce the good performance of Lobanov, Gerstman, and Nearey 1 found earlier and generally favor log-mean and centroid methods. However, newer methods achieve higher effect sizes (i.e., explain more variance) at only marginally worse performances. Random effects were found to be equally useful before and after normalization, showing that they complement it. The findings are interpreted in light of the way that the different methods handle formant dynamics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-4966</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-8524</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1121/10.0015025</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36456282</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JASMAN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022-11, Vol.152 (5), p.2692-2710</ispartof><rights>Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36456282$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Voeten, Cesko C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heeringa, Wilbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Velde, Hans</creatorcontrib><title>Normalization of nonlinearly time-dynamic vowels</title><title>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</title><addtitle>J Acoust Soc Am</addtitle><description>This study compares 16 vowel-normalization methods for purposes of sociophonetic research. Most of the previous work in this domain has focused on the performance of normalization methods on steady-state vowels. By contrast, this study explicitly considers dynamic formant trajectories, using generalized additive models to model these nonlinearly. Normalization methods were compared using a hand-corrected dataset from the Flemish-Dutch Teacher Corpus, which contains 160 speakers from 8 geographical regions, who spoke regionally accented versions of Netherlandic/Flemish Standard Dutch. Normalization performance was assessed by comparing the methods' abilities to remove anatomical variation, retain vowel distinctions, and explain variation in the normalized F0–F3. In addition, it was established whether normalization competes with by-speaker random effects or supplements it, by comparing how much between-speaker variance remained to be apportioned to random effects after normalization. The results partly reproduce the good performance of Lobanov, Gerstman, and Nearey 1 found earlier and generally favor log-mean and centroid methods. However, newer methods achieve higher effect sizes (i.e., explain more variance) at only marginally worse performances. Random effects were found to be equally useful before and after normalization, showing that they complement it. The findings are interpreted in light of the way that the different methods handle formant dynamics.</description><issn>0001-4966</issn><issn>1520-8524</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AJDQP</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEURYMotlY3_gCZpSij-Z5kKcUvKLrR9ZBOEohkJjWZVqa_3tRWcaObd3mPw-VxADhF8AohjK5zQogYxGwPjBHDsBQM030whvlcUsn5CByl9JZXJog8BCPCKeNY4DGATyG2yru16l3oimCLLnTedUZFPxS9a02ph061rilW4cP4dAwOrPLJnOxyAl7vbl-mD-Xs-f5xejMrGyJZX3KEpZZYMA1tI7iGlDBIrbKVIJjYCov8C0eMcisZgUiZSpl803moeWXIBJxvexcxvC9N6uvWpcZ4rzoTlqnGFeVEQoJlRi-2aBNDStHYehFdq-JQI1hvDG1yZyjDZ7ve5bw1-gf9VpKByy2QGtd_Wfm_7k96FeIvsl5oSz4BoyN6xg</recordid><startdate>202211</startdate><enddate>202211</enddate><creator>Voeten, Cesko C.</creator><creator>Heeringa, Wilbert</creator><creator>Van de Velde, Hans</creator><scope>AJDQP</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202211</creationdate><title>Normalization of nonlinearly time-dynamic vowels</title><author>Voeten, Cesko C. ; Heeringa, Wilbert ; Van de Velde, Hans</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Voeten, Cesko C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heeringa, Wilbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Velde, Hans</creatorcontrib><collection>AIP Open Access Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Voeten, Cesko C.</au><au>Heeringa, Wilbert</au><au>Van de Velde, Hans</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Normalization of nonlinearly time-dynamic vowels</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</jtitle><addtitle>J Acoust Soc Am</addtitle><date>2022-11</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>152</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>2692</spage><epage>2710</epage><pages>2692-2710</pages><issn>0001-4966</issn><eissn>1520-8524</eissn><coden>JASMAN</coden><abstract>This study compares 16 vowel-normalization methods for purposes of sociophonetic research. Most of the previous work in this domain has focused on the performance of normalization methods on steady-state vowels. By contrast, this study explicitly considers dynamic formant trajectories, using generalized additive models to model these nonlinearly. Normalization methods were compared using a hand-corrected dataset from the Flemish-Dutch Teacher Corpus, which contains 160 speakers from 8 geographical regions, who spoke regionally accented versions of Netherlandic/Flemish Standard Dutch. Normalization performance was assessed by comparing the methods' abilities to remove anatomical variation, retain vowel distinctions, and explain variation in the normalized F0–F3. In addition, it was established whether normalization competes with by-speaker random effects or supplements it, by comparing how much between-speaker variance remained to be apportioned to random effects after normalization. The results partly reproduce the good performance of Lobanov, Gerstman, and Nearey 1 found earlier and generally favor log-mean and centroid methods. However, newer methods achieve higher effect sizes (i.e., explain more variance) at only marginally worse performances. Random effects were found to be equally useful before and after normalization, showing that they complement it. The findings are interpreted in light of the way that the different methods handle formant dynamics.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>36456282</pmid><doi>10.1121/10.0015025</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0001-4966
ispartof The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022-11, Vol.152 (5), p.2692-2710
issn 0001-4966
1520-8524
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2746390329
source American Institute of Physics:Jisc Collections:Transitional Journals Agreement 2021-23 (Reading list)
title Normalization of nonlinearly time-dynamic vowels
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T19%3A19%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Normalization%20of%20nonlinearly%20time-dynamic%20vowels&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20the%20Acoustical%20Society%20of%20America&rft.au=Voeten,%20Cesko%20C.&rft.date=2022-11&rft.volume=152&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=2692&rft.epage=2710&rft.pages=2692-2710&rft.issn=0001-4966&rft.eissn=1520-8524&rft.coden=JASMAN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1121/10.0015025&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2746390329%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-6129d9285d0fc86d043504faf78323f72805861546f95301ae7ae805de80ab7e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2746390329&rft_id=info:pmid/36456282&rfr_iscdi=true