Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34642471›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Evaluation of digital watermarking on subjective speech quality.

Yann Kowalczuk, Jan Holub

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yann KowalczukDepartment of Measurement, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 2, Prague, 166 27, Czech Republic. kowalyan@fel.cvut.cz.
Jan HolubDepartment of Measurement, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 2, Prague, 166 27, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New methods of securing the distribution of audio content have been widely deployed in the last twenty years. Their impact on perceptive quality has, however, only been seldomly the subject of recent extensive research. We review digital speech watermarking state of the art and provide subjective testing of watermarked speech samples. Latest speech watermarking techniques are listed, with their specifics and potential for further development. Their current and possible applications are evaluated. Open-source software designed to embed watermarking patterns in audio files is used to produce a set of samples that satisfies the requirements of modern speech-quality subjective assessments. The patchwork algorithm that is coded in the application is mainly considered in this analysis. Different watermark robustness levels are used, which allow determining the threshold of detection to human listeners. The subjective listening tests are conducted following ITU-T P.800 Recommendation, which precisely defines the conditions and requirements for subjective testing. Further analysis tries to determine the effects of noise and various disturbances on watermarked speech's perceived quality. A threshold of intelligibility is estimated to allow further openings on speech compression techniques with watermarking. The impact of language or social background is evaluated through an additional experiment involving two groups of listeners. Results show significant robustness of the watermarking implementation, retaining both a reasonable net subjective audio quality and security attributes, despite mild levels of distortion and noise. Extended experiments with Chinese listeners open the door to formulate a hypothesis on perception variations with geographical and social backgrounds.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChinaData CompressionHumansLanguagePattern Recognition, AutomatedSpeech PerceptionTelecommunications

Identifiers

PMID34642471
PMCPMC8511066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.