Prominence-aware automatic speech recognition for conversational speech

Barbara Schuppler; Julian Linke

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Prominence-aware automatic speech recognition for conversational speech

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A prominence-aware ASR system transcribes words and strongly emphasized words simultaneously, without degrading word error rate.

desk verdict Genuinely new joint ASR+prominence architecture, but the paper's own Table 4 contradicts the 'no WER degradation' claim; worth a serious referee but not yet a trustworthy result. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10116 v1 pith:CT56YTZY submitted 2025-09-12 cs.CL eess.AS

Julian Linke , Barbara Schuppler This is my paper

classification cs.CLeess.AS

keywords prominencedetectionautomaticspeechrecognitionprosodywav2vec2conversationalAustrianGermanCTClossend-to-endASR

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that prosodic prominence – the emphasis a speaker places on a word – can be recognized jointly with the words themselves by a single end-to-end transformer ASR system for conversational Austrian German. The authors first fine-tune a wav2vec2 model to distinguish unaccented from strongly accented words, use that detector to auto-label a larger corpus, and then train ASR systems whose character targets carry per-character prominence tags. They report that adding prominence information does not degrade word error rate compared to a plain ASR baseline, even though the output vocabulary grows, and that on utterances the model transcribes with the correct word count, prominence accuracy reaches 85.53%. If correct, this gives linguists and dialogue systems a transcript that includes which words matter, without paying an accuracy penalty.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is character-level prominence tagging: each word's characters are written with a '0' or '2' digit appended (e.g., 'd0 i0 e0' for unaccented 'die') and word boundaries marked with '|', making the CTC target a joint encoding of words and prominence. Around this, the pipeline runs in two stages: a wav2vec2 XLSR detector (PDET02 for two levels, PDET012 for three) is fine-tuned with CTC loss, then the best detector auto-annotates a 14.4-hour corpus, and those references train the prominence-aware ASR. Prominence labels are emitted only by the greedy 'Lexfree' decoder; the beam-search decoder's lexicon strips prominence tags.

What would settle it

Inspect the data split: if the training set of 33,734 utterances includes either conversation 003M023F or 004M024F, then the reported WERs and 85.53% accuracy are training-set numbers and the central no-degradation claim collapses. A direct test is to retrain with those conversations excluded and check whether the WER differences and the prominence accuracy of 85.53% are reproduced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a wav2vec2-based ASR system can transcribe words and assign each word a binary prominence label (unaccented vs strongly accented) simultaneously in spontaneous conversational speech, without degrading word error rate. The mechanism encodes prominence directly into character targets: each character carries a '0' or '2' suffix, so output combines lexical and prosodic information. In utterances the model transcribes with the correct word count, prominence accuracy reaches 85.53%; a three-way distinction performs worse (69.45%), matching human annotators' difficulty with weak prominence. The no-degradation result holds for greedy decoding; beam search with a pro

Load-bearing premise

The paper does not state explicitly that the two evaluation conversations (003M023F and 004M024F) were held out from the 14.4-hour / 33,734-utterance training set, so the reported word-error rates and the 85.53% prominence accuracy are trustworthy only if those conversations were not used for training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result holds, prosodic prominence annotation can be obtained as a by-product of ASR on spontaneous conversational speech, without forced alignments or hand-labelled prominence on every utterance.
The two-way distinction (unaccented vs strongly accented) is the reliable target; the weak-prominence category is too unreliable in human annotation to be worth modelling.
The 'no WER degradation' result holds specifically for greedy decoding; beam-search decoding with a lexicon loses the prominence output, so applications that need prosody must accept the simpler decoder.
The method adds evidence that wav2vec2's self-supervised representations encode prosodic information well enough to be used directly for suprasegmental classification.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension the paper does not test: the same character-tagging trick could attach other per-word prosodic events, such as pitch accents or boundary tones, potentially at similar zero WER cost.
Because the ASR training targets come from the detector's own auto-annotations, the reported 85.53% accuracy is partly a measure of consistency between detector and ASR, not necessarily agreement with human listeners; a human-evaluated prominence test would sharpen the claim.
The approach suggests a data-efficiency route for low-resource languages: a few hours of manually marked prominence plus a larger unlabelled corpus could yield a prosody-aware recognizer.
The comparison is made within one corpus and language; whether the no-degradation result transfers to other languages or to more varied acoustic conditions is an open empirical question.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the core idea is new and useful—making prominence a per-character tag in a CTC model so one pass gives you words plus stress. But the headline claim of "no WER degradation" is contradicted by their own numbers, and the paper needs a careful revision before I'd trust its conclusions.

What's good: I haven't seen this exact output representation before. The closest prior work looks at stress patterns inside wav2vec2, not joint generation of transcriptions and word-level prominence. The PL0/PL2 detector reaches 87–89% accuracy on alignable words, which is respectable and in line with older feature-based systems. The training pipeline is clearly described, and the authors are transparent about several limitations.

Soft spots, in order of severity:

1. Internal contradiction on WER. Section 3.2 explicitly says "WERs... were worse than the baseline with absolute maximum deterioration of 2.1%–2.3%." Table 4 confirms that almost every prominence-aware system is worse, by up to 2.3% absolute. Yet Section 4 and the abstract claim "did not change performance" and "no WER degradation." That is not a phrasing quibble; the paper's main selling point is that prominence costs nothing. They need significance tests or at least confidence intervals to show the 1–2% is noise, or they need to rewrite the conclusion.

2. The 85.53% accuracy in the abstract is on a self-selected 52% of utterances where alignment was possible. The unfiltered PER is 65.42%. Presenting 85.53% without the condition is misleading.

3. The data split is underspecified. The paper never states that the two test conversations were held out of the 14.4-hour ASR training set. It says 003M023F was "not part of the prominence-annotated subset," but that is not the same as being excluded from ASR training. 004M024F was part of the prominence-annotated subset. If either conversation was in the training data, the reported WERs and prominence numbers do not measure generalization. This must be stated explicitly.

On the circularity worry in the reader's report: less severe than claimed. Section 2.1.2 says the detector was trained on a held-out test conversation (004M024F), so the detector itself did not see that conversation's human labels. But the automatic annotations used for ASR training may come from a model trained on all data, so label independence is murky. Again, a clarity fix.

This paper is for people building prosody-aware ASR or automatic prosody annotation tools for conversational speech. The architecture deserves attention. But as written, the central claim overreaches the evidence. I'd send it to peer review with a request for corrected claims, significance testing, explicit held-out splits, and code/data release. The idea is solid enough to spend referee time on.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes prominence-aware ASR for conversational Austrian German. The authors first fine-tune wav2vec2 XLSR with a CTC loss to perform word-level prominence detection on a manually annotated subset of the GRASS corpus, producing two detectors: PDET02 (PL0 vs. PL2) and PDET012 (PL0/PL1/PL2). These detectors are then used to automatically annotate the larger GRCS corpus, and the resulting word-level prominence labels are inserted into character-level reference transcriptions to train prominence-aware ASR variants (ASR0, ASR2, ASR02). The ASR is evaluated on two conversations, 003M023F and 004M024F, with greedy decoding, a lexicon, and a 3-gram LM. The paper reports a prominence detection accuracy of 85.53% for ASR02(PDET02) on utterances where the recognized word sequence can be aligned, and claims that prominence integration caused no WER degradation despite the increased search space. The authors position this as the first prominence-aware ASR system that simultaneously transcribes speech and annotates strongly prominent words, with applications in linguistics, subtitling, and dialogue systems.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would make a useful empirical contribution: it would show that wav2vec2 representations carry enough prosodic information to output word-level prominence labels jointly with transcription at negligible WER cost, starting from a relatively small manually annotated seed. The paper has concrete strengths: it targets spontaneous conversational speech, compares two- and three-level prominence detection, reports confusion matrices, and integrates prominence labels in a straightforward CTC character-level framework. However, the central empirical claims are not currently supported by the reported data. The WER results in Table 4 contradict the 'no degradation' phrasing, no significance tests are provided, and the prominence-accuracy evaluation has unresolved circularity and selection-bias issues. The significance of the contribution is therefore conditional on correcting these load-bearing concerns.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Table 4] The claim 'we observed no WER degradation' is not supported by Table 4. Every prominence-aware configuration except one (ASR2(PDET02) with 3-gram LM on 003M023F: 18.50 vs 18.57) is equal to or worse than the baseline, with the largest degradation being +2.32% absolute (ASR02(PDET02), Lex, 004M024F: 29.84 vs 27.52). Section 3.2 itself acknowledges a 'maximum deterioration of 2.1%–2.3%.' If the intended claim is 'no significant degradation,' significance tests (e.g., matched-pair tests over utterances) are required; otherwise the sentence should be revised. This is central to the paper's contribution.
[Section 3.1.1, Section 3.2] The paper never states that the two ASR test conversations 003M023F and 004M024F were held out from the 14.4 h / 33,734-utterance training set. Section 3.1.1 says training data came from the 'entire GRCS component'; 004M024F is described in Section 3.2 as 'also part of the prominence-annotated subset,' and 003M023F is one of the 19 corpus conversations. If either conversation appears in ASR training, the reported WERs are not valid test measurements and the no-degradation claim collapses. Please state explicitly whether these conversations were excluded, and if not, report results after retraining with proper held-out splits.
[Section 2.2, Table 2] The 85.53% prominence accuracy for ASR02(PDET02) is affected by label circularity. PDET02 was trained on manually annotated data including conversation 004M024F, then used to auto-annotate the 'entire GRCS component' for ASR training, and the ASR's prominence output is later evaluated against the same human labels for 004M024F. Thus the ASR can indirectly learn annotation idiosyncrasies of this conversation through the automatically generated labels. A proper evaluation requires a conversation unseen by both the detector and the ASR training data, or at least a detector version trained without 004M024F.
[Section 2.2, Table 2; Section 4] The 85.53% figure is computed on only 52.17% of utterances after requiring word-boundary alignment; Section 2.2 notes that alignments are possible only when the recognized word sequence matches in length, and the majority-voting rule discards ambiguous tag strings. This self-selected subset likely overestimates accuracy relative to all utterances, and the paper provides no error bars or alternative metrics on the full set. The claim that prominence detection is 'highly reliable' should be restricted to the aligned subset and supported by a less selective evaluation.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2] In the first sentence of Section 3.2, the second occurrence of '(003M023F)' should presumably be '(004M024F)': the text reads '23.71% − 31.25% (003M023F)' but describes the other conversation.
[Throughout] The corpus name is inconsistently written as 'GRASS' and 'GRCS'; 'GRCS component' appears in Sections 2.2 and 3.1.1 while the corpus is introduced as GRASS. Please unify the terminology.
[Section 4] The Discussion says the detector was used to annotate '19h' of conversations, but Section 3.1.1 reports 14.4 h after preprocessing. Please clarify which duration is meant.
[Table 4] The table would benefit from explicit column labels such as 'Greedy', 'Lex', and 'Lex + 3-gram' in addition to the current header, to make the decoding conditions easier to parse.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 85.53% ASR prominence accuracy is trained on PDET02's auto-labels and evaluated on the same conversation's human labels, making it a cascaded re-measurement of the detector rather than an independent prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1.2, Section 2.2, Section 3.1.2]
"In a final step, the entire GRCS component was automatically annotated twice with the final prominence detectors PDET02 and PDET012. ... we trained prominence-aware ASR systems by including additional information of prominence levels derived from the prominence detectors PDET02 and PDET012. ... the accuracy of 85.53% of ASR02(PDET02) demonstrates comparable results to the original prominence detection model PDET02."

The ASR's prominence output is trained on auto-annotations produced by PDET02 (Sec. 3.1.2). PDET02 was used to auto-annotate 'the entire GRCS component' (Sec. 2.1.2), and the ASR is evaluated on conversation 004M024F, which is part of that component and is the same conversation on which PDET02's human-labeled prominence accuracy was reported (Table 2). Thus the ASR's training target for 004M024F is PDET02's label sequence, and the reported 85.53% accuracy is measured against the human labels that PDET02 was built to approximate. By construction, the ASR is rewarded for reproducing PDET02's mapping on the evaluation conversation; the number therefore tracks PDET02's own accuracy (87.40%) rather than independently demonstrating that the ASR encodes prosodic information. It is a cascaded fit,

full rationale

The central circularity is the prominence-accuracy headline: the ASR's prominence labels are trained with PDET02-derived auto-annotations over the entire GRCS component, and the 85.53% figure is computed on 004M024F, a conversation inside that component, against human labels. The ASR is effectively evaluated on its ability to imitate the detector's learned mapping, so the result is partly forced by the training-label construction. The WER comparison, by contrast, is not circular, but it is internally inconsistent: Section 3.2 reports 'absolute maximum deterioration of 2.1%−2.3%' and Table 4 shows most prominence-aware configurations at or above baseline WER, contradicting the abstract's 'did not change performance' and the Discussion's 'no WER degradation.' That is a correctness/data-reporting problem, not a circularity. Also, the paper never states that the two ASR evaluation conversations were held out of the 14.4 h ASR training set; if 004M024F was in training, both WER and prominence-accuracy results are further compromised. These issues lower confidence but the circularity score is 6 because the paper's key prominence-detection capability claim reduces by construction to a trained-detector re-measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of the human annotations, the validity of forced-alignment filtering, and an ad hoc mapping from character-level tags to word-level prominence. No new physical or formal entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The KIM prominence annotations, with levels 2 and 3 merged, are reliable enough as ground truth for detector training and evaluation.
Section 2.1.1 reports inter-annotator agreement of only 0.57 for PL1 vs PL2, and the paper itself excludes PL1 from the ASR because 'unreliable manually created PL1 labels'. The merged PL0/PL2 distinction is used as the main target.
domain assumption Forced alignments from a Kaldi system provide sufficiently accurate word boundaries for automatic annotation, and the 48-58% of utterances that fail to align can be discarded without bias.
Section 2.1.2 explains that only words whose boundaries align with Kaldi forced alignments are annotated; Section 2.2 evaluates accuracy only on these aligned utterances.
ad hoc to paper The majority-voting rule that maps character-level prominence tags (e.g., 'd0 i0 e0') to a single word-level label, discarding ambiguous strings (e.g., 'd0 i1 e'), is a valid post-processing step.
Section 2.2 describes this rule when computing the 85.53% accuracy for ASR02(PDET02); it is a hand-designed procedure not justified by independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prominence-aware automatic speech recognition for conversational speech." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CT56YTZY

@misc{pith2026250910116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prominence-aware automatic speech recognition for conversational speech},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CT56YTZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10116}
}

read the original abstract

This paper investigates prominence-aware automatic speech recognition (ASR) by combining prominence detection and speech recognition for conversational Austrian German. First, prominence detectors were developed by fine-tuning wav2vec2 models to classify word-level prominence. The detector was then used to automatically annotate prosodic prominence in a large corpus. Based on those annotations, we trained novel prominence-aware ASR systems that simultaneously transcribe words and their prominence levels. The integration of prominence information did not change performance compared to our baseline ASR system, while reaching a prominence detection accuracy of 85.53% for utterances where the recognized word sequence was correct. This paper shows that transformer-based models can effectively encode prosodic information and represents a novel contribution to prosody-enhanced ASR, with potential applications for linguistic research and prosody-informed dialogue systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10116 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Confusion matrices derived from prominence detectors PDET02 (left) and PDET012 (middle) for conversation with ID 004M024F and corresponding confusion matrix of human annotators (right). Results of the prominence detectors refer only to words of utterances where alignment between human-annotated word boundaries and detection-annotated word boundaries was possible. For the development of our prominence-aware ASR sys… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Unsupervised Cross-Lingual Representation Learning for Speech Recognition,

Introduction Prosodic prominence is a complex phenomenon that manifests through multiple acoustic and perceptual dimensions [1]. A c- curate prosodic prominence detection is crucial for applic ations like speech synthesis, language learning tools, and clinical voice analysis, yet remains elusive in spontaneous speech contex ts. V arious approaches have em...

arXiv 2006
[2]

Materials and Methods 2.1.1

Prominence Detection 2.1. Materials and Methods 2.1.1. GRASS corpus Our experiments are based on the Graz corpus of Read and Spontaneous Speech (GRASS, [14, 15]), featuring 19 face- to-face conversations between two closely acquainted nati ve speakers of Austrian German. The complete corpus was an- notated manually with orthographic transcriptions, and a ...
[3]

Materials and Methods 3.1.1

Prominence-aware ASR 3.1. Materials and Methods 3.1.1. Data preparation Prominence-aware ASR systems were based on labeled speech data from the entire GRCS component. Pre-processing involved the exclusion of utterances containing laughter, singing, imi- tations/onomatopoeia, unintelligible word tokens and art efacts which resulted in approx. 14.4 h (relat...
[4]

Table 3: Concept of character-based prominence-aware ASR training

Discussion and conclusion This paper is the ﬁrst to present a prominence-aware ASR system that can simultaneously transcribe speech and anno- 2Note that the number of character tokens can vary with respec t to a given training set. Table 3: Concept of character-based prominence-aware ASR training . Generally, each character in the reference text was assig...
[5]

Acknowledgements This research was funded in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [10.55776/P32700]

work page doi:10.55776/p32700
[6]

Great expectations - introspective vs. perc eptual prominence ratings and their acoustic correlates,

P . Wagner, “Great expectations - introspective vs. perc eptual prominence ratings and their acoustic correlates,” in Proc. of In- terspeech, 2005, pp. 2381–2384

2005
[7]

ANALOR . A tool for semi-automatic annotation of French prosodic stru cture,

M. Avanzi, A. Lacheret-Dujour, and B. Victorri, “ANALOR . A tool for semi-automatic annotation of French prosodic stru cture,” in Proc. of Speech Prosody, 2008, pp. 119–122

2008
[8]

Automatic pros odic event detection using acoustic, lexical, and syntactic evi dence,

S. Ananthakrishnan and S. S. Narayanan, “Automatic pros odic event detection using acoustic, lexical, and syntactic evi dence,” IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang Processing , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 216–228, 2008

2008

Show all 25 references

[9]

Automat ic labelling of prosodic prominence, phrasing and disﬂuencie s in French speech by simulating the perception of na¨ ıve and exp ert listeners,

G. Christodoulides, M. Avanzi, and A. C. Simon, “Automat ic labelling of prosodic prominence, phrasing and disﬂuencie s in French speech by simulating the perception of na¨ ıve and exp ert listeners,” in Proc. of Interspeech, 2017, pp. 3936–3940

2017
[10]

Using word-level f eatures for prosodic prominence detection in conversational speec h,

J. Linke, G. Kubin, and B. Schuppler, “Using word-level f eatures for prosodic prominence detection in conversational speec h,” in Proc. of ICPhS, 2023

2023
[11]

A corpus of r ead and conversational Austrian German,

B. Schuppler, M. Hagm ¨ uller, and A. Zahrer, “A corpus of r ead and conversational Austrian German,” Speech Communication , vol. 94, pp. 62–74, 2017

2017
[12]

Wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,

A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “Wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds., vol. 33, 2020, pp. 12 ...

2020
[13]

Phonemic competit ion in end-to-end ASR models,

L. ten Bosch, M. Bentum, and L. Boves, “Phonemic competit ion in end-to-end ASR models,” in Proc. of Interspeech , 2023, pp. 586–590

2023
[14]

The processing of s tress in end-to-end automatic speech recognition models,

M. Bentum, L. ten Bosch, and T. Lentz, “The processing of s tress in end-to-end automatic speech recognition models,” in Inter- speech 2024, 2024, pp. 2350–2354

2024
[15]

Detection of prosodic boundaries in speech using wav2vec 2.0,

M. Kunesova and M. Rez´ ackov´ a, “Detection of prosodic boundaries in speech using wav2vec 2.0,” in International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252369747

2022
[16]

Unsupervised Cross-Lingual Representation Lear ning for Speech Recognition,

A. Conneau, A. Baevski, R. Collobert, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “Unsupervised Cross-Lingual Representation Lear ning for Speech Recognition,” in Proc. of Interspeech, 2021, pp. 2426– 2430

2021
[17]

What do self-supervised speech representat ions encode? An analysis of languages, varieties, speaking styl es and speakers,

J. Linke, M. Kadar, G. Dosinszky, P . Mihajlik, G. Kubin, and B. Schuppler, “What do self-supervised speech representat ions encode? An analysis of languages, varieties, speaking styl es and speakers,” in Proc. of Interspeech, 2023, pp. 5371–5375

2023
[18]

What’s so complex about conversational spee ch? prosodic prominence and speech recognition challenges,

J. Linke, “What’s so complex about conversational spee ch? prosodic prominence and speech recognition challenges,” D oc- toral Thesis, Graz University of Technology, 2025

2025
[19]

GRASS: The Graz corpus of Read And Spon- taneous Speech,

B. Schuppler, M. Hagm ¨ uller, J. A. Morales-Cordovilla , and H. Pessentheiner, “GRASS: The Graz corpus of Read And Spon- taneous Speech,” in Proc. of LREC, 2014, pp. 1465–1470

2014
[20]

A corpus ofread and conversational Austrian German,

B. Schuppler, M. Hagm ¨ uller, and A. Zahrer, “A corpus ofread and conversational Austrian German,” Speech Communication , vol. 94C, pp. 62–74, 2017

2017
[21]

The Kiel Intonation Model – KIM,

O. Niebuhr, “The Kiel Intonation Model – KIM,” in Prosodic Theory and Practice . The MIT Press, 02 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0011

2022 doi
[22]

Con- nectionist temporal classiﬁcation: Labelling unsegmente d se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,

A. Graves, S. Fern´ andez, F. Gomez, and J. Schmidhuber, “Con- nectionist temporal classiﬁcation: Labelling unsegmente d se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,” in Proc. of ICML , 2006, pp. 369–376

2006
[23]

Using K aldi for automatic speech recognition of conversational Austri an Ger- man,

J. Linke, S. Wepner, G. Kubin, and B. Schuppler, “Using K aldi for automatic speech recognition of conversational Austri an Ger- man,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2301.06475, 2023

2023 arXiv
[24]

KenLM: Faster and smaller language model queries,

K. Heaﬁeld, “KenLM: Faster and smaller language model queries,” in Proc. of the Sixth W orkshop on Statistical Machine Translation , 2011, pp. 187–197. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/W11-2123

2011
[25]

The impact of wo rd alignment accuracy on audio-visual word prominence detect ion,

M. Heckmann, P . Mikias, and D. Kolossa, “The impact of wo rd alignment accuracy on audio-visual word prominence detect ion,” in Speech Communication; 11. ITG Symposium , 2014, pp. 1–4

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Unsupervised Cross-Lingual Representation Learning for Speech Recognition,

Introduction Prosodic prominence is a complex phenomenon that manifests through multiple acoustic and perceptual dimensions [1]. A c- curate prosodic prominence detection is crucial for applic ations like speech synthesis, language learning tools, and clinical voice analysis, yet remains elusive in spontaneous speech contex ts. V arious approaches have em...

arXiv 2006

[2] [2]

Materials and Methods 2.1.1

Prominence Detection 2.1. Materials and Methods 2.1.1. GRASS corpus Our experiments are based on the Graz corpus of Read and Spontaneous Speech (GRASS, [14, 15]), featuring 19 face- to-face conversations between two closely acquainted nati ve speakers of Austrian German. The complete corpus was an- notated manually with orthographic transcriptions, and a ...

[3] [3]

Materials and Methods 3.1.1

Prominence-aware ASR 3.1. Materials and Methods 3.1.1. Data preparation Prominence-aware ASR systems were based on labeled speech data from the entire GRCS component. Pre-processing involved the exclusion of utterances containing laughter, singing, imi- tations/onomatopoeia, unintelligible word tokens and art efacts which resulted in approx. 14.4 h (relat...

[4] [4]

Table 3: Concept of character-based prominence-aware ASR training

Discussion and conclusion This paper is the ﬁrst to present a prominence-aware ASR system that can simultaneously transcribe speech and anno- 2Note that the number of character tokens can vary with respec t to a given training set. Table 3: Concept of character-based prominence-aware ASR training . Generally, each character in the reference text was assig...

[5] [5]

Acknowledgements This research was funded in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [10.55776/P32700]

work page doi:10.55776/p32700

[6] [6]

Great expectations - introspective vs. perc eptual prominence ratings and their acoustic correlates,

P . Wagner, “Great expectations - introspective vs. perc eptual prominence ratings and their acoustic correlates,” in Proc. of In- terspeech, 2005, pp. 2381–2384

2005

[7] [7]

ANALOR . A tool for semi-automatic annotation of French prosodic stru cture,

M. Avanzi, A. Lacheret-Dujour, and B. Victorri, “ANALOR . A tool for semi-automatic annotation of French prosodic stru cture,” in Proc. of Speech Prosody, 2008, pp. 119–122

2008

[8] [8]

Automatic pros odic event detection using acoustic, lexical, and syntactic evi dence,

S. Ananthakrishnan and S. S. Narayanan, “Automatic pros odic event detection using acoustic, lexical, and syntactic evi dence,” IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang Processing , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 216–228, 2008

2008