Audiovisual Speech Recognition: Introduction and ... - Semantic Scholar

1 downloads 0 Views 334KB Size Report
twofold: (1) To make a short introduction to the field of audio-visual speech ... or severely degraded, as is the case with hearing-impaired listeners or very noisy ...
1

Audiovisual Speech Recognition: Introduction and an Approach to Multimodal Fusion with Uncertain Features Research Area: Artificial Intelligence and Human-Computer Interaction George Papandreou, Graduate Student, Athanassios Katsamanis, Graduate Student, Vassilis Pitsikalis, Graduate Student, and Petros Maragos, Professor School of Electrical and Computer Engineering National Technical University of Athens Email: {gpapan, nkatsam, vpitsik, maragos}@cs.ntua.gr Web: http://cvsp.cs.ntua.gr Abstract Most Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems only use speech features extracted from the speaker’s audio signal. The performance of such audio-only speech recognizers heavily degrades whenever the audio signal is not ideal, for example in environments with heavy acoustic noise. One recent approach to robust speech recognition in such adverse conditions is to also utilize in ASR systems visual speech related features extracted from videos capturing the speaker’s face. This approach to robust ASR is inspired from the audio-visual mechanisms also present in human speech recognition. The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) To make a short introduction to the field of audio-visual speech recognition and highlight the research challenges in the area; and (2) to summarize our recent research in the problem of adaptive audio-visual fusion. Index Terms Audiovisual speech recognition, information fusion, feature uncertainty

I. I NTRODUCTION TO AUDIOVISUAL S PEECH R ECOGNITION Commercial Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems are uni-modal, i.e., only use features extracted from the audio signal to perform recognition. Although audio-only speech recognition is a mature technology with a long record of significant research and development achievements [1], current uni-modal ASR systems can work reliably only under rather constrained conditions, where restrictive assumptions regarding the size of the vocabulary, the amount of noise etc can be made. These shortcomings have seriously undermined the role of ASR as a pervasive Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) technology and have limited the applicability of speech recognition systems to well-defined applications like dictation and low-to-medium vocabulary transaction processing systems. On the other hand, speech recognition by humans is fundamentally multi-modal. Although audio is the most important source of information for speech recognition, people also use visual cues as a complimentary aid in order to successfully perceive speech. The key role of the visual modality is apparent in situations where the audio signal is either unavailable or severely degraded, as is the case with hearing-impaired listeners or very noisy environments, where seeing the speaker’s face is indispensable in recognizing what has been spoken. Human perception weighs the visual information more when two articulated sounds are not easily discernible acoustically, but can be discriminated visually due to a different place of articulation, as is the case with the phonemes /n/ and /m/(,/t/ and /p/ or /b/ and /v/), which sound very similar but look quite different [2]. This phenomenon is lucidly manifested in a well known psychological illusion, the so-called McGurk effect [3], [4]. In their experiments, McGurk and MacDonald found out that when somebody experiences contradictory audio and visual speech cues, he/she tends to perceive whatever is most consistent with both sensory information. For example, if in a videotape the audio syllable ”ba” is dubbed onto a visual ”ga”, then fusion of the auditory stimulus of the front consonant in ”ba” (vocal tract closed at the lips) with the visual stimulus of the back consonant in ”ga” (closure at the back of the throat) will yield in most people the perception of the middle consonant ”da”. The McGurk effect shows that human speech understanding is multi-modal, resulting from sensory integration of audio and visual stimuli. These findings provide strong motivation for the Speech Recognition community to do research in exploiting visual information for speech recognition, thus enhancing ASR systems with speechreading capabilities [5]. Research in this relatively new area has shown that multimodal ASR systems can perform better than their audio-only or visual-only counterparts. The first such results where reported back in the early 80’s by Petajan [6]. The performance gain becomes more substantial in scenarios where the quality of the audio signal is degraded, as is the case with particularly noisy environments such as a

vehicle’s cabin [7]. The potential of significant performance improvement of audiovisual ASR systems, combined with the fact that image capturing devices are getting cheaper, has increased the commercial interest in them. However, the design of robust audio-visual ASR systems, which perform better than their audio-only analogues in all scenarios, poses new research challenges. Two new major issues arise in the design of audio-visual ASR systems, namely: • Selection and robust extraction of visual speech features. From the extremely high data rate of the raw video stream, one has to choose a small number of salient features which have good discriminatory power for speech recognition and can be extracted automatically, robustly and with low computational cost. • Optimal fusion of the audio and visual features. Inference should be based on the heterogeneous pool of audio and visual features in a way that ensures that the combined audiovisual system outperforms its audio-only counterpart in practically all scenarios. This is definitely non-trivial, given that (1) the audio and visual streams are only loosely synchronized and (2) the relative quality of the audio and visual features can vary dramatically during a typical session. The rest of this paper will describe our recent research [8], [9] in the problem of audio-visual feature fusion and also describe briefly the design of our system’s visual front-end. Other aspects of audiovisual ASR systems are reviewed in [5], [10]. II. P RIOR W ORK IN M ULTIMODAL F USION Complementary information sources have been successfully utilized in many applications. Previous studies, e.g. [11], have shown that fusing visual and audio cues can lead to improved performance relatively to audio-only recognition, especially in the presence of audio noise. However, successfully integrating heterogeneous information streams is challenging, mainly because of the need for adaptation to dynamic environmental conditions, which dissimilarly affect the reliability of the separate modalities. For example, the visual stream in AV-ASR should be discounted when the visual front-end momentarily mis-tracks the speaker’s face. Using stream weights to equalize the different modalities is common to many stream integration methods. Stream weights operate as exponents to each stream’s probability density and have been employed in fusion tasks of different audio streams [12] and audio-visual integration [13]. Despite its favorable experimental properties, the technique requires setting the weights for the different streams; although various methods have been proposed for this purpose [14], a rigorous approach to stream weight adaptation is still missing. In our work we approach the problem of adaptive multimodal fusion by explicitly taking feature measurement uncertainty of the different modalities into account. In single modality scenarios, modeling feature noise has proven fruitful for ASR [15], [16] and has been further pursued for applications such as speaker verification [17] and speech enhancement [18]. We show in a rigorous probabilistic framework how multimodal learning and classification rules should be adjusted to account for feature measurement uncertainty; Gaussian Mixture Models (GMM) and Hidden Markov Models (HMM) are discussed in detail and modified EM algorithms for training are derived. Our approach leads to adaptive multimodal fusion rules which are widely applicable and easy to implement. This paper extends our previous work [8], [9] by considering the effect of uncertain features not only during decoding, but also during model training. III. M ULTIMODAL F USION BY U NCERTAINTY C OMPENSATION For many applications one can get improved performance by exploiting complementary features, stemming from a single or multiple modalities. Let us assume that one wants to integrate S information streams which produce feature vectors x s , s = 1, . . . , S. If the features are statistically independent given the class label c, application of Bayes’ formula yields the class label probability given the full observation vector x1:S ≡ (x1 ; . . . ; xS ): p(c|x1:S ) ∝ p(c)

S Y

p(xs |c).

(1)

s=1

In an attempt to improve classification performance, several authors have introduced stream weights w s as exponents in Eq. (1), resulting in the modified expression b(c|x1:S ) = p(c)

S Y

p(xs |c)ws ,

(2)

s=1

which can be seen in a logarithmic scale as a weighted average of individual stream log-probabilities. Such schemes have been motivated by potential differences in reliability among different information streams, and larger weights are assigned to information streams with better classification performance. Using such weighting mechanisms has been experimentally proven to be beneficial for feature integration in both intra-modal (e.g. multiband audio [12]) and inter-modal (e.g. audio-visual speech recognition [14], [19], [20]) scenarios. The stream weights formulation is however unsatisfactory in various respects as it has been discussed in [8], [9], where we have shown that accounting for feature uncertainty naturally leads to a highly adaptive mechanism for fusion of different information sources. More specifically, we consider a stochastic measurement framework where we do not have direct access

σe=σ1

σe=∞

σe=0

Figure 1. Decision boundaries for classification of a noisy observation (square marker) in two classes, shown as circles, for various observation

noise variances. Classes are modeled by spherical Gaussians of means µ 1 , µ2 and variances σ12 I, σ22 I respectively. The decision boundary is plotted for three values of noise variance (a) σe = 0, (b) σe = σ1 , and (c) σe = ∞. With increasing noise variance, the boundary moves away from its noise-free position.

to the features xs and our decision mechanism depends on their noisy version ys = xs + es . The probability of interest is thus obtained by integrating out the hidden clean features xs , i.e. S Z Y p(c|y1:S ) ∝ p(c) p(xs |c)p(ys |xs )dxs . (3) s=1

In the common case of clean features modeled with a gaussian mixture model (GMM), p(x s |c) = PMs,c m=1 ρs,c,m N (xs ; µs,c,m , Σs,c,m ), and gaussian observation noise at each stream, i.e. p(y s |xs ) = N (ys ; xs + µe,s , Σe,s ) (extension to gaussian mixture noise model is trivial), we have shown in [8] that p(c|y1:S ) ∝ p(c)

s,c S M Y X

ρs,c,m N (ys ; µs,c,m + µe,s , Σs,c,m + Σe,s ),

(4)

s=1 m=1

which means that we can simply proceed by considering our features ys clean, provided that we shift the model means by µe,s and increase the model covariances Σs,c,m by Σe,s . Note that, although the measurement noise covariance matrix Σe,s of each stream is the same for all classes c and all mixture components m, noise particularly affects the most peaked mixtures, for which Σe,s is substantial relative to the modeling uncertainty due to Σs,c,m . The effect of feature uncertainty compensation in a simple 2-class classification task is illustrated in Fig. 1. Although Eq. (4) is conceptually simple and easy to implement, given an estimate of the measurement noise variance Σ e,s of each stream, it actually constitutes a highly adaptive rule for multisensor fusion. To appreciate this, and also to show how our scheme is related to the stream weights formulation of Eq. (2), we examine a particularly illuminating special case of our result, when: 1) The measurement noise covariance is a scaled version of the model covariance, i.e. Σ e,s = λs,c,m Σs,c,m for some positive constant λs,c,m interpreted as the relative measurement error. 2) For every stream observation ys the gaussian mixture response of that stream is dominated by a single component m 0 . Under these conditions, Eq. (4) can be written as [8] ws,c,m0 S  Y p(c|y1:S ) ∝p(c) (5) ρ˜s,c,m0 N (ys ; µs,c,m0 + µe,s , Σs,c,m0 ) s=1

ws,c,m0 =1/(1 + λs,c,m0 ),

(6)

with ws,c,m0 being effective stream weights; ρ˜s,c,m0 is a properly modified mixture weight, independent of the observation ys . Note that these effective stream weights are between 0 (for λs,c,m0  1) and 1 (for λs,c,m0 ≈ 0) and discount the contribution of each stream to the final result by PSproperly taking its relative measurement error into account; however they do not need to satisfy a sum-to-one constraint s=1 ws,c,m0 = 1, as is conventionally considered by other authors. This is an appealing result and unveils the probabilistic assumptions under stream weight-based formulations. It shows further that our fusion rule in Eq. (4) acts as effectively selecting for each new measurement ys and uncertainty estimate (µe,s , Σe,s ) corresponding stream weights fully adaptively with respect to both class label c and mixture component m.

IV. EM T RAINING U NDER U NCERTAINTY In many real-world applications requiring big volumes of training data, very accurate training sets collected under strictly controlled conditions are very difficult to gather. For example, in audiovisual speech recognition it is unrealistic to assume that a human expert annotates each frame in the training videos. A usual compromise is to adopt a semi-automatic annotation technique which yields a sufficiently diverse training set; since such a technique can introduce non-negligible feature errors in the training set, it is important to take training set feature uncertainty into account in learning procedures. Under our feature uncertainty viewpoint, only a noisy version y of the underlying true property x can be observed. Maximumlikelihood estimation of the GMM parameters θ from a training set Y = {y1 , . . . , yN } under the EM algorithm [21] should thus consider the corresponding clean features X , besides the class memberships M, as hidden variables. The expected completedata log-likelihood Q(θ, θ 0 ) = E[log p(Y, {X , M}|θ)|Y, θ 0 ] of the parameters θ in the EM algorithm’s current iteration given the previous guess θ 0 in the E-step should thus be obtained by summing over discrete and integrating over continuous hidden variables. In the single stream case this translates to: Q(θ, θ 0 ) =

M N X X

log πm p(m|yi , θ0 ) +

M Z N X X

log p(yi |xi )p(xi , m|yi , θ0 )dxi +

i=1 m=1

i=1 m=1

M Z N X X

log p(xi |m, θ)p(xi , m|yi , θ0 )dxi

(7)

i=1 m=1

We get the updated parameters θ in the M-step by maximizing Q(θ, θ 0 ) over θ, yielding rm =

N X i=1

ri,m ,

πm =

rm , N

µm =

N 1 X ri,m x ˆi,m , rm i=1

Σm =

N  1 X xi,m − µm )(ˆ xi,m − µm )T , ri,m Σxi,m + (ˆ rm i=1

(8)

where (the prime denotes previous-step parameter estimates) 0 N (yi ; µ0m + µe,i , Σ0m + Σe,i ) ri,m = p(m|yi , θ0 ) ∝ πm  x ˆi,m = Σxi,m (Σ0m )−1 µ0m + (Σe,i )−1 (yi − µe,i ) , −1 . Σxi,m = (Σ0m )−1 + (Σe,i )−1

(9) (10) (11)

Two important differences w.r.t. the noise-free case are notable: first, error-compensated scores are utilized in computing the responsibilities ri,m in Eq. (9); second, in updating the model’s means and variances, one should replace the noisy measurements yi used in conventional GMM training with their model-enhanced counterparts, described by the expected value x ˆi,m and variance Σxi,m . Furthermore, in the multimodal case with multiple streams s = 1, . . . , S, one should compute the QS 0 0 0 responsibilities by ri,m ∝ πm s=1 N (ys,i ; µs,m + µs,e,i , Σs,m + Σs,e,i ), which generalizes Eq. (9) and introduces interactions among modalities. Analogous EM formulas for HMM parameter estimation are given in the Appendix. Similarly to the analysis in Section III, we can gain insight into the previous EM formulas by considering the special case of constant and model-aligned errors Σe,i = Σe = λm Σm . Then, after convergence, the covariance formula in Eq. (8) can be written as 1 ˜ m , or, equivalently, Σm = Σ ˜ m − Σe , Σm = Σ (12) 1 + λm ˜ m = 1 PN ri,m (yi − µm )(yi − where we simply subtract from the conventional (non-compensated) covariance estimate Σ i=1 rm µm )T the noise covariance Σe . The rule in Eq. (12) has been used before as heuristic for fixing the model covariance estimate after conventional EM training with noisy data (e.g. [22]). We have shown that it is justified in the constant and model-aligned errors case; otherwise, one should use the more general rules in Eq. (8). Another link of our training under uncertain measurements scenario is to neural network training with noise (or noise injection) [23], where an original training set is artificially supplemented with multiple noisy instances of it and the resulting enriched set is used for training. Training with noise is relatively immune to over-fitting and leads to classifiers with improved generalization ability. V. A PPLICATION TO AUDIO -V ISUAL S PEECH R ECOGNITION To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed fusion scheme we apply it in Audio-Visual Automatic Speech Recognition (AV-ASR), a practical problem for which proper information fusion is important.

Visual Front-End. Upper-Left: Mean shape s0 and the first eigenshape s1 . Upper-Right: Mean texture A0 and the first eigenface A1 . Lower: Tracked face shape and feature point uncertainty.

Figure 2.

A. Visual Front-end Salient visual speech information can be obtained from the shape and the texture (intensity/color) of the speaker’s visible articulators, mainly the lips and the jaw, which constitute the Region Of Interest (ROI) around the mouth [11]. We use Active Appearance Models (AAM) [24] of faces to accurately track the speaker’s face and extract visual speech features from both its shape and texture. AAM, first used for AV-ASR in [25], are generative models of object appearance and have proven particularly effective in modeling human faces for diverse applications, such as face recognition or tracking. In the AAM scheme an object’s shape is modeled as a wireframe mask defined by a set of landmark points {x i , i = 1 . . . N }, whose coordinates constitute a shape vector s of length Pn 2N . We allow for deviations from the mean shape s 0 by letting s lie in a linear n-dimensional subspace, yielding s = s0 + i=1 pi si . The deformation of the shape s to the mean shape s0 defines a mapping W (x; p), which brings the face exemplar on the current frame I into registration with the mean face template. After canceling out shape deformation, the face color P texture registered with the mean face can be modeled as a weighted sum of m “eigenfaces” {Ai }, i.e., I(W (x; p)) ≈ A0 (x) + i=1 λi Ai (x), where A0 is the mean texture of faces. Both eigenshape and eigenface bases are learned during a training phase.The first few of them extracted by such a procedure are depicted in Fig. 2. Given a trained AAM, model fitting amounts to finding forP each video frame I t the parameters p˜t ≡ {pt , λt } which minimize m the squared texture reconstruction error It (W (pt )) − A0 − i=1 λt,i Ai ; efficient iterative algorithms for this non-linear least squares problem can be found in [24]. The fitting procedure employs a face detector [26] to get an initial shape estimate for the first frame. As visual feature vector for speech recognition we use the parameters p˜t of the fitted AAM. We employ as uncertainty in the visual features the uncertainty in estimating the parameters of the corresponding non-linear least squares problem [27, ch. 15]; plots of the corresponding uncertainty in localizing the landmarks on the image for two example faces are illustrated in Fig. 2. B. Audio Front-end We use the Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC) to represent audio, as it is common in contemporary ASR systems. Uncertainty is considered to originate from additive noise to the audio waveform. To get estimates of the clean features we employ the speech enhancement framework proposed in [18]. The enhanced features are derived from the noisy ones by iteratively improving a guess based on a prior clean speech model and Vector Taylor Series approximation [28], and their uncertainty is computed by the techniques in [18]. In this way, fusion by uncertainty compensation is facilitated. Alternative enhancement procedures could be used provided that they give variance estimates for the enhanced features. C. Audio-Visual Speech Recognition Experiments We evaluate our fusion approach in classification experiments on the CUAVE audiovisual database [29]; the considered task is word classification of isolated digits. By contaminating the clean audio signal with babble noise from the NOISEX collection

Table I

W ORD P ERCENT ACCURACY (%) OF CLASSIFICATION EXPERIMENTS ON CUAVE DATABASE FOR VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS ON THE AUDIO STREAM ; EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED FOR : AUDIO (A), V ISUAL (V) AND AUDIO -V ISUAL (AV) FEATURES , WITH STREAM WEIGHTS EQUAL TO UNITY, WITH U NCERTAINTY C OMPENSATION IN THE TESTING PHASE (UC), AND WITH U NCERTAINTY C OMPENSATION BOTH IN THE TESTING AND TRAINING (UCT). SNR clean 15 dB 10 dB 5 dB 0 dB -5 dB

A 99.3 96.7 91.3 82.0 62.7 40.3

V 75.7 -

AV 90.0 88.0 88.3 87.0 84.3 81.7

AV-UC 88.3 88.7 88.0 87.0 82.0

AV-UCT 88.0 87.7 87.7 87.3 83.0

we extended the database including its noisy version. Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), along with their first and second order derivatives, have been utilized as observations for the audio stream, comprising a 39-dimensional audio vector in total. We have utilized the estimated audio variances along the lines of Section V-B as the uncertainty of the audio cue. In the visual front-end, we form a 18-dimensional visual feature vector (6 shape and 12 texture features) and enhance it with up to second derivatives, for a 54-dimensional visual feature vector, which, along with its variance, is computed as discussed in Section V-A. Mean Normalization has been applied to both the audio and visual features. For the acoustic and visual modeling of the observations we constructed 8-state left-right word multi-stream HMMs [11] with a single multidimensional Gaussian observation probability distribution per stream at each state. The models were trained on clean audio data, while for the visual training data their corresponding variances were taken into account into the modified EM algorithm of the Appendix. Incorporation of feature uncertainty in the testing phase has been implemented in the HMM decoder by increasing the observation variance in the modified forward algorithm described in the Appendix. Our experimental results summarized in Table I show that accounting for uncertainty in the case of audiovisual fusion (Audiovisual with Uncertainty Compensation in testing and/or training, AV-UC and AV-UCT respectively) improves AV-ASR performance in most cases. For the baseline audiovisual setup we used multistream HMMs with stream weights equal to unity for both streams. The proposed approach (AV-UC, AV-UCT) seems particularly effective at lower SNRs. VI. C ONCLUSIONS The paper has shown that taking the feature uncertainty into account constitutes a fruitful framework for multimodal feature analysis tasks. This is especially true in the case of multiple complementary information streams, where having a good estimate of each stream’s uncertainty at a particular moment facilitates information fusion, allowing for proper training and fully adaptive stream integration schemes. In order this approach to reach its full potential, reliable methods for dynamically estimating the feature observation uncertainty are needed. Ideally, the methods that we employ to extract features in pattern recognition tasks should accompany feature estimates with their respective errorbars. Although some progress has been done in the area, further research is needed before we fully understand the quantitative behavior under diverse conditions of popular features commonly used in pattern analysis tasks such as speech recognition. Acknowledgments: We thank A. Potamianos for providing an initial experimental setup for AV-ASR, I. Kokkinos for visual front-end discussions, K. Murphy for using his HMM toolkit, and J. N. Gowdy for using the CUAVE database. Our work has been supported by the European Network of Excellence MUSCLE and by the European research programs HIWIRE and ASPI. A PPENDIX I EM T RAINING FOR HMM S U NDER U NCERTAINTY For the HMM, similarly to the GMM case covered in Sec. IV, the expected complete-data log-likelihood Q(θ, θ 0 ) = E[log p(O, {Q, X , M}|θ)|O, θ 0 ] of the parameters θ in the EM algorithm’s current iteration given the previous guess θ 0 is obtained in the E-step as: 0

Q(θ, θ ) =

T XX

q∈Q t=1

X

T X M X

q∈Q t=1 m=1

Z

0

log aqt−1 qt P (O, q|θ ) +

T Z XX

log p(ot |xt , qt , θ0 )P (O, q, xt |θ0 )dxt +

q∈Q t=1

log p(xt |mt , qt , θ0 )P (O, q, m, xt |θ0 )dxt +

T X M XX

q∈Q t=1 m=1

p(m|qt , θ0 )P (O, q, m|θ 0 ) +

X

log πq0 P (O, q|θ 0 )

q∈Q

(13)

The responsibilities γt (i, k) = p(qt = i, m = k) are estimated via a forward-backward procedure [30] modified so that uncertainty compensated scores are utilized: 0

at+1 (j) = P (o1:t , qt = j|θ ) = βt (i) = P (ot+1:T |qt = i, θ 0 ) =

N hX

i αij at (i) b0j (ot+1 )

(14)

αij b0j (ot+1 )βt+1 (j),

(15)

i=1 N X j=1

PM where b0j (ot ) = m=1 ρm N (ot ; µ0j,m + µet , Σ0j,m + Σet ). Scoring is done similarly to the conventional case by the forward PN algorithm, i.e. P (O|θ) = i=1 aT (i). The updated parameters θ are estimated using formulas similar to the GMM case in Section IV. For µq,m , Σq,m the filtered estimate for the observation is used as in (11).

APPENDIX 

 II    "!# $!%&!('&$!()*&#+-,.  )/&$00&)1&'2&+3 "!# 54"#30$&  &67(&83&#9:#+ '&$#  &- "! ;&'.)F&!(DG $.)N$Q  (- +30?&#&H#% + $? !( %#0!>. & Q&(!%&)E$RD(!%(S & !#0 &'UT3'&#Q&3@- C# &-0$D%(&U#CQ! ,. &$V!(W&'&H#&  & (  >.).!(W(>."!0 !#)X$4"& )W&#+ -,.  )X8>.# ) W!(D!  S-0H#)W&(!#9:(&)X-T3  &%)PD#&)W!(#'&)X% # #YG $G!%TZ6$. &!

#&8&03PO&&J:#+ &$['\Q  -!#I&J &!%+ #&8%B!%;#'&">R&;!&\&$0!# "@]DG!%  &J%0H#&)K6-TZ \4"! )[ &  ! )^#&8&0&)^- # Z$# $D#L&'?!K (H#$D%(F!#0 && &"! 'M!(#'?&&M Z&-T3(>R O&(!#0&$Q&&#(!%  !#Y$& &03@ _#H#& $D#[ &"! `! & Y#& DG+ + [ !(N&#!#:#[ "!#$!>.Y&#+-,. )^8 >.# )ST3D!(- #D)a#(!#0 &D%) # &  % )@&A!#K!%M%(%#! [&#Q $!%P T3,.)S & "! )S#& +"+ % )S&[D4"&$ &T3  %  !(^&# TZ%0L$) #M!%M& 6$PT3M&#&30& &$CS(!%$&0M !#Y(+ &0b&!# "@ C(,R!%P..# )F$M!#IQ& T3-0c! )M#83&0&)M#&d&T3DG!#%V!#\&# \Q& (!#c&R+ b&'?&!#'F4"&( &!#  !#0 ,. &&M 4"G!0e#-!% O$^!#[&$& 9@fV0?!%F" &'?&!('F4"#9$&& &6$ $GT3'&H#&)Xg hS#& )Ci&+ "!(,.C+0 !S&!#'&$!% (!%  $' & &"!#N#D4"-0YG!%&$# ^&( a!#) " #)X&# ,R&  Q& (!(%3@g :#&H#&)C!%Y&"!# $!%&)$4"& )C'#& )C% # &D#KH0&# $K$C! D)&&#$DG!##)&&N#&30e#&S!# " #  !%&[#& ,E&&[!&K&$0!# "@ j %6!##PE&  !#% !% E;6-T3% ;!>.\! &,.F  R &&"! &,.F4"&# &!( "! &,.F+0=!(J'c   #&6;#+ (,. ;!#) &$ &0&)@E&6!kH#4"#  #G!% .&'kH(6=&#+ (!()lmn o[&#&D)?!#)F! )b &.!()F & !#0 )M#&830&)b !#=!# H0&( &-0c!#)F&$& 0&)?H#I% #  4"#p +4"# $D%(%)PR &qPV #0>.)PmrQ&o[.#9MAC-TZ-,R&&xzyI4"&# )@ { ok|}H0'!#!%NtW+"+ #&8DG>.lf@# &#H#(D% P#AN@~^!# &$&#)P(S@  !#0 )Cm€i&&@ j 9H( &!%&#).uyI oP & N@y;#+" '&) mn~^TZ+ !( )Cy; oG@ ‚ o1tu!%  4"%0.&0 & (>.0&)l Email: {gpapan, nkatsam, vpitsik, maragos}@cs.ntua.gr P^D8>.#3l {"v-ƒ x „„ {{…{ƒ P {"v-ƒ x „„ {{‚†ƒ @ … o s D%:(-0)Gxz~a%0H#9l AC#+ (,.#  ?hS$ &0&)Pg hS#&Li&+ "!(,.PtW6%TZ K C#&83&#9)@ R EFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

L. Rabiner and B.-H. Juang, Fundamentals of Speech Recognition. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1993. G. Potamianos and C. Neti, “Automatic speechreading of impaired speech,” in Int’l Conf. on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing, 2001, pp. 177–182. H. McGurk and J. MacDonald, “Hearing lips and seeing voices,” Nature, vol. 264, pp. 746–748, 1976. D. Massaro and D. Stork, “Speech recognition and sensory integration,” American Scientist, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 236–244, 1998. D. Stork and M. Hennecke, Eds., Speechreading by Humans and Machines. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1996. E. Petajan, “Automatic lipreading to enhance speech recognition,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Campaign, 1984. R. Pieraccini, K. Dayanidhi, J. Bloom, J.-G. Dahan, M. Phillips, B. Goodman, and K. Prasad, “Multimodal conversational systems for automobiles,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 47–49, 2004. [8] A. Katsamanis, G. Papandreou, V. Pitsikalis, and P. Maragos, “Multimodal fusion by adaptive compensation for feature uncertainty with application to audiovisual speech recognition,” in EUSIPCO, 2006. [9] V. Pitsikalis, A. Katsamanis, G. Papandreou, and P. Maragos, “Adaptive multimodal fusion by uncertainty compensation,” in ICSLP, 2006, pp. 2458–2461. [10] G. Potamianos, C. Neti, J. Luettin, and I. Matthews, “Audio-visual automatic speech recognition: An overview,” in Issues in Visual and Audio-Visual Speech Processing, G. Bailly, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson, and P. Perrier, Eds. MIT Press, 2004, ch. 10.

[11] G. Potamianos, C. Neti, G. Gravier, and A. Garg, “Automatic recognition of audio-visual speech: Recent progress and challenges,” Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 91, no. 9, pp. 1306–1326, 2003. [12] A. Morris, A. Hagen, H. Glotin, and H. Bourlard, “Multi-stream adaptive evidence combination for noise robust ASR,” Speech Communication, vol. 34, pp. 25–40, 2001. [13] A. Potamianos, E. Sanchez-Soto, and K. Daoudi, “Stream weight computation for multi-stream classifiers,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2006. [14] H. Glotin, D. Vergyri, C. Neti, G. Potamianos, and J. Luettin, “Weighting schemes for audio-visual fusion in speech recognition,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2001. [15] V. Digalakis, J. Rohlicek, and M. Ostendorf, “ML estimation of a stochastic linear system with the EM algorithm and its application to speech recognition,” IEEE TSAP, pp. 431–442, 1993. [16] R. C. Rose, E. M. Hofstetter, and D. A. Reynolds, “Integrated models of signal and background with application to speaker identification in noise,” IEEE TSAP, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 245–257, 1994. [17] N. Yoma and M. Villar, “Speaker verification in noise using a stochastic version of the weighted viterbi algorithm,” IEEE TSAP, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 158–166, 2002. [18] L. Deng, J. Dropo, and A. Acero, “Dynamic compensation of HMM variances using the feature enhancement uncertainty computed from a parametric model of speech distortion,” IEEE TSAP, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 412–421, 2005. [19] S. Dupont and J. Luettin, “Audio-visual speech modeling for continuous speech recognition,” IEEE Tr. on Mult., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 141–151, 2000. [20] A. Nefian, L. Liang, X. Pi, X. Liu, and K. Murphy, “Dynamic bayesian networks for audio-visual speech recognition,” EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, vol. 11, pp. 1–15, 2002. [21] A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin, “Maximum Likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm,” J. of Royal St. Soc. (B), vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 1977. [22] M. S. Crouse, R. D. Nowak, and R. G. Baraniuk, “Wavelet-based statistical signal processing using hidden markov models,” vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 886–902, 1998. [23] J. Sietsma and R. Dow, “Creating artificial neural networks that generalize,” Neural Networks, vol. 4, pp. 67–79, 1991. [24] T. Cootes, G. Edwards, and T. C.J., “Active appearance models,” IEEE PAMI, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 681–685, 2001. [25] I. Matthews, T. F. Cootes, J. A. Bangham, S. Cox, and R. Harvey, “Extraction of visual features for lipreading,” IEEE PAMI, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 198–213, 2002. [26] P. Viola and M. Jones, “Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features,” in Proc. CVPR, vol. I, 2001, pp. 511–518. [27] W. Press, S. Teukolsky, W. Vetterling, and B. Flannery, Numerical Recipes. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992. [28] B. Frey, T. Kristjansson, L. Deng, and A. Acero, “Learning dynamic noise models from noisy speech for robust speech recognition,” in Proc. NIPS, vol. 8, 2001, pp. 472–478. [29] E. K. Patterson, S. Gurbuz, Z. Tufekci, and J. N. Gowdy, “CUAVE: A new audio-visual database for multimodal human-computer interface research,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2002. [30] L. Rabiner, “A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,” Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 257–286, 1989.