slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Bruce Lowerre ’ s HARPY speech recognition system PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Bruce Lowerre ’ s HARPY speech recognition system

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 7

Bruce Lowerre ’ s HARPY speech recognition system - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

Bruce Lowerre ’ s HARPY speech recognition system. Introduction. Developed by Lowerre & Reddy in 1979 A turning-point for recognition systems development Significant break with architectures of Hearsay and HWIM Hearsay and HWIM artificial intelligence approach to speech understanding.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Bruce Lowerre ’ s HARPY speech recognition system


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Bruce Lowerre’s HARPY speech recognition system

    2. Introduction • Developed by Lowerre & Reddy in 1979 • A turning-point for recognition systems development • Significant break with architectures of Hearsay and HWIM • Hearsay and HWIM artificial intelligence approach to speech understanding

    3. How did it work? • 1st Large vocabulary continuous speech recognition (LVCSR) system • Reasonable performance • Replaced multiple knowledge sources with integrated network of spectral templates • Used rule firing by graph search

    4. Significance • Showed good recognition could be achieved through good engineering • Showed good quality linguistic knowledge was not required • Did threaten to split field into two • People who accept any computational framework for recognition • People who sought an explanation of human processing using familiar symbolic manipulation

    5. What was learnt • Dennis Klatt studied Harpy to deduce a cognitive model called LAFS (Lexical Access from Spectra) • Alan Newell attempted to link Harpy’s integrated search into AI production systems • However both failed to be taken seriously

    6. Criticism by Donald Norman • Harpy’s performance was considerably worse than a human • Harpy’s architecture was only one of many potential architectures for speech recognition • Harpy did not show how higher level linguistic constraints could be incorporated in the search

    7. Conclusion • High performance came from postponing decisions • Not to identify segments until such time as top-down information about potential word sequences were available • Harpy started the divergence between word accuracy and contemporary linguistic or psycho-linguistic wisdom