| Literature DB >> 35371200 |
Liang Meng1, Prakash Kuppuswamy2, Jinal Upadhyay3, Sumit Kumar4, Shashikant V Athawale5, Mohd Asif Shah6.
Abstract
As a result of the fast rise of globalization, people in China are learning English at a rapid pace. However, there is a severe shortage of English teachers in the region, which is a major hindrance. To address these concerns, a deep learning-based algorithm is proposed that can not only check English pronunciation but also help learners distinguish between phonemic and quality phonemic while listening and differentiating, as well as correct phonemic errors, thereby increasing their language learning capacity. In order to study the application of nonlinear network identification technology in English learning, this paper evaluates the English pronunciation quality through the deep learning algorithm of deep learning combined with the related contents of neural network data model, and the experimental results of speech recognition structure are analyzed and discussed in detail. The concordance between machine and manual intonation evaluation is 80%, the concordance rate of adjacent intonation evaluation is 98.33%, and the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.627 that shows the technique is reliable. The method of English pronunciation and speech identification model is sensible and dependable, which can give beginners a punctual, exact and impartial judgment and response guidance, assist learners to get on the differences between their phonemic and standard phonemic, and correct phonemic mistakes, in order to enhance the ability of oral English learning.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35371200 PMCID: PMC8970943 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6785642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Schematic diagram of segmentation, mean dimension reduction, and regularization of speech characteristic parameters.
Number table of segmented mean dimension reduction and regular parameters of speech characteristic parameters.
| Parameter condition | Stage | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | |
| Matrix size | T∗K | (T/N)∗K | (T/(M∗N))∗K | ([T/(M∗N)]∗[1/T/(M∗N)])∗K | M∗K | (M∗N)∗K |
| Number of parameters | T∗K | T∗K | T∗K | K∗M∗N | K∗M∗N | K∗M∗N |
Comparison of recognition rates under different models.
| Indicators | |
|---|---|
| Model | Discrimination (%) |
| DHMM | 90.79 |
| CDHMM | 94.09 |
| TDA-MWST | 93.16 |
| TDA-GTS | 93.09 |
| BP-Adaboost | 89.37 |
| KASWT | 92.68 |
| This model | 96.64 |
Evaluation index experimental results-number of samples.
| Indicators | Number of samples (pieces) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consistent | The difference is one level | The difference is two levels | The difference is three levels | |
| Accuracy in pitch | 207 | 32 | 1 | 0 |
| Speed | 197 | 43 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhythm | 204 | 33 | 3 | 0 |
| Intonation | 192 | 44 | 4 | 0 |
Evaluation index experimental results-statistical indicators.
| Indicators | Difference level | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Consistency rate (%) | Adjacent coincidence rate (%) | Pearson | |
| Accuracy in pitch | 86.25 | 99.58 | 0.8 |
| Speed | 82.08 | 100 | 0.493 |
| Rhythm | 85.00 | 98.75 | 0.543 |
| Intonation | 80.00 | 98.33 | 0.627 |
Figure 2Overall evaluation differences between machine and labor.