Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37050521›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

High-Level CNN and Machine Learning Methods for Speaker Recognition.

Giovanni Costantini, Valerio Cesarini, Emanuele Brenna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

3 authors.

Giovanni CostantiniDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8675-5532
Valerio CesariniDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Roma, Italy.
Emanuele BrennaDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9404-2732

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speaker Recognition (SR) is a common task in AI-based sound analysis, involving structurally different methodologies such as Deep Learning or "traditional" Machine Learning (ML). In this paper, we compared and explored the two methodologies on the DEMoS dataset consisting of 8869 audio files of 58 speakers in different emotional states. A custom CNN is compared to several pre-trained nets using image inputs of spectrograms and Cepstral-temporal (MFCC) graphs. AML approach based on acoustic feature extraction, selection and multi-class classification by means of a Naïve Bayes model is also considered. Results show how a custom, less deep CNN trained on grayscale spectrogram images obtain the most accurate results, 90.15% on grayscale spectrograms and 83.17% on colored MFCC. AlexNet provides comparable results, reaching 89.28% on spectrograms and 83.43% on MFCC.The Naïve Bayes classifier provides a 87.09% accuracy and a 0.985 average AUC while being faster to train and more interpretable. Feature selection shows how F0, MFCC and voicing-related features are the most characterizing for this SR task. The high amount of training samples and the emotional content of the DEMoS dataset better reflect a real case scenario for speaker recognition, and account for the generalization power of the models.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSoundAcousticsBayes TheoremAlexNetaudioCNNF0Machine LearningNaïve Bayesspeaker recognition

Identifiers

PMID37050521
PMCPMC10098737

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.