Inhalt des Dokuments
Dr.-Ing. Friedemann Köster
Research Field
- Quality of Speech and Audio
- Speech- and Signal Processing
Research Topics
- Multidimensional Diagnostic Analysis of Conversational Speech Quality
Biography
Friedemann Köster studied Industrial Engineering at the Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel. In 2012 he finished his studies and received his Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Ing. degree. Currently he is working as a research assistant at the Quality and Usability Lab of Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, TU-Berlin, where he also works towards a Phd degree in the field of quality.
Projects
- Subjektive Messung und instrumentelle Schätzung von Sprachqualität in einer Konversationssituation auf Basis von perzeptiven Dimensionen
- User-Friendly Estimation of Speech Quality for Telecommunications and
Network Carriers (UFESQ)
Teaching
Address:
Quality and Usability Lab
Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
TU Berlin
Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7
D-10587 Berlin, Germany
Telefon:
+49 30 8353 58255
+49 151 14745202
Publications
Zitatschlüssel | koester2015d |
---|---|
Autor | Köster, Friedemann and Möller, Sebastian |
Buchtitel | Fortschritte der Akustik – DAGA 2015: Plenarvortr. u. Fachbeitr. d. 41. Dtsch. Jahrestg. f. Akust. |
Seiten | 143–146 |
Jahr | 2015 |
ISBN | 978-3-939296-08-9 |
Ort | Nürnberg, DE |
Adresse | Berlin |
Monat | mar |
Notiz | another medium |
Verlag | DEGA |
Wie herausgegeben | full |
Zusammenfassung | In this contribution the frequency and consistency of expert and naive listeners in a technical causes annotation experiment are compared. For this, two experiments with experts and naifs following the guidelines of the currently discussed ITU-Recommendation P.TCA were conducted. In these experiments, participants are asked to annotate speech files with respect to their possible degradation by choosing from a list of 47 degradations, separated in 9 impairment types. Originally intended for experts, the P.TCA procedure was expanded with exemplary listening material for naive annotators to lift them on an expert level. The results show that experts annotate more consistent than naifs and that the additional provided examples are not sufficient for an equal analysis. Furthermore, findings about possible improvement of the P.TCA methodology are presented. |