Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

L EARNING

LINEARLY SEPARABLE FEATURES FOR
SPEECH RECOGNITION USING CONVOLUTIONAL NEU RAL NETWORKS

arXiv:1412.7110v6 [cs.LG] 16 Apr 2015

Dimitri Palaz
Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
dimitri.palaz@idiap.ch
Mathew Magimai.-Doss & Ronan Collobert
Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland
mathew@idiap.ch, ronan@collobert.com

A BSTRACT
Automatic speech recognition systems usually rely on spectral-based features,
such as MFCC of PLP. These features are extracted based on prior knowledge such
as, speech perception or/and speech production. Recently, convolutional neural
networks have been shown to be able to estimate phoneme conditional probabilities in a completely data-driven manner, i.e. using directly temporal raw speech
signal as input. This system was shown to yield similar or better performance than
HMM/ANN based system on phoneme recognition task and on large scale continuous speech recognition task, using less parameters. Motivated by these studies,
we investigate the use of simple linear classifier in the CNN-based framework.
Thus, the network learns linearly separable features from raw speech. We show
that such system yields similar or better performance than MLP based system using cepstral-based features as input.

1

I NTRODUCTION

State-of-the-art automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems typically divide the task into several
sub-tasks, which are optimized in an independent manner (Bourlard & Morgan, 1994). In a first step,
the data is transformed into features, usually composed of a dimensionality reduction phase and an
information selection phase, based on the task-specific knowledge of the phenomena. These two
phases have been carefully hand-crafted, leading to state-of-the-art features such as mel frequency
cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) or perceptual linear prediction cepstral features (PLPs). In a second
step, the likelihood of subword units such as, phonemes is estimated using generative models or
discriminative models. In a final step, dynamic programming techniques are used to recognize the
word sequence given the lexical and syntactical constraints.
Recently, in the hybrid HMM/ANN framework (Bourlard & Morgan, 1994), there has been growing
interests in using “intermediate” representations, like short-term spectrum, instead of conventional
features, such as cepstral-based features. Representations such as Mel filterbank output or log spectrum have been proposed in the context of deep neural networks (Hinton et al., 2012). In our recent
study (Palaz et al., 2013), it was shown that it is possible to estimate phoneme class conditional
probabilities by using temporal raw speech signal as input to convolutional neural networks (LeCun,
1989) (CNNs). This system yielded similar or better results on TIMIT phoneme recognition task
with standard hybrid HMM/ANN systems. We also showed that this system is scalable to large vocabulary speech recognition task (Palaz et al., 2015). In this case, the CNN-based system was able
to outperform the HMM/ANN system with less parameters.
In this paper, we investigate the features learning capability of the CNN based system with simple
classifiers. More specifically, we replace the classification stage of the CNN based system, which
was a non-linear multi-layer perceptron, by a linear single layer perceptron. Thus, the features
1

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

log(·)
speech
signal

FFT

Critical bands
filtering

DCT

MFCC

Derivatives
∆ + ∆∆

+

AR
modeling

PLP

Derivatives
∆ + ∆∆

+

x

NN
classifier

p(i|x)

x

NN
classifier

p(i|x)

Non-linear
operation
√
3
·

(a) MFCC and PLP extraction pipelines

speech
signal

FFT

Critical bands
filtering

Derivatives
∆ + ∆∆

+

x

CNN

NN
classifier

p(i|x)

(b) Typical CNN based pipeline using Mel filterbank (Sainath et al., 2013a; Swietojanski et al.,
2014)
speech
signal

x

NN
classifier

CNN

p(i|x)

(c) Proposed approach

Figure 1: Illustration of several features extraction pipelines. p(i|x) denotes the conditional probabilities for each input frame x, for each label i.
learned by the CNNs are trained to be linearly separable. We evaluate the proposed approach on
phoneme recognition task on the TIMIT corpus and on large vocabulary continuous speech recognition on the WSJ corpus. We compare our approach with conventional HMM/ANN system using
cepstral-based features. Our studies show that the CNN-based system using a linear classifier yields
similar or better performance than the ANN-based approach using MFCC features, with fewer parameters.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the motivation of this work.
Section 3 presents the architecture of the proposed system. Section 4 presents the experimental setup
and Section 5 presents the results. Section 6 presents the discussion and conclude the paper.

2

M OTIVATION

In speech recognition, designing relevant features is not a trivial task, mainly due to the fact that
the speech signal is non-stationary and that relevant information is present at different level, namely
spectral level and temporal level. Inspired by speech coding studies, feature extraction typically involves modeling the envelop of the short-term spectrum. The two most common features along that
line are Mel frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) (Davis & Mermelstein, 1980) and perceptual
linear prediction cepstral coefficient (PLP) (Hermansky, 1990). These features are both based on
obtaining a good representation of the short-term power spectrum. They are computed following a
series of steps, as presented in Figure 1(a). The extraction process consists of (1) transforming the
temporal data in the frequency domain, (2) filtering the spectrum based on critical bands analysis,
which is derived from speech perception knowledge, (3) applying a non-linear operation and (4)
applying a transformation to get reduced dimension decorrelated features. This process only models
the local spectral level information, on a short time window. To model the temporal variation intrinsic in the speech signal, dynamic features are computed by taking the first and second derivative
of the static features on the longer time window, and concatenate them together. These resulting
features are then fed to the acoustic modeling part of the speech recognition system, which can be
based on Gaussian mixture model (GMM) or artificial neural networks (ANN). In the case of neural
networks, the classifier outputs the conditional probabilities p(i|x), with x denoting the input feature
and i the class.
In recent years, deep neural network (DNN) based and deep belief network (DBN) based approaches
have been proposed (Hinton et al., 2006), which yield state-of-the-art results in speech recognition
using neural networks composed of many hidden layers. In the case of DBN, the networks are
2

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

initialized in an unsupervised manner. While this original work relied on MFCC features, several
approaches have been proposed to use ‘intermediate” representations (standing between raw
signal and “classical” features such as cepstral-based features) as input. In other words, these are
approaches that discard several operations in the extraction pipeline of the conventional features (see
Figure 1(b)). For instance, Mel filterbank energies were used as input of convolutional neural networks based systems (Abdel-Hamid et al., 2012; Sainath et al., 2013a; Swietojanski et al., 2014).
Deep neural network based systems using spectrum as input has also been
proposed (Mohamed et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2009; Sainath et al., 2013b).
Combination of different features has also been investigated (Bocchieri & Dimitriadis, 2013).
Learning features directly from the raw speech signal using neural networks-based systems has been
investigated. In Jaitly & Hinton (2011), the learned features by a DBN are post-processed by adding
their temporal derivatives and used as input for another neural network. A recent study investigated
acoustic modeling using raw speech as input to a DNN Tüske et al. (2014). The study showed
that raw speech based system is outperformed by spectral feature based system. In our recent studies (Palaz et al., 2013; 2015), we showed that it is possible to estimate phoneme class conditional
probabilities by using temporal raw speech signal as input to convolutional neural networks (see
Figure 1(c)). This system is composed of several filter stages, which performs the features learning step and which are implemented by convolution and max-pooling layers, and of a classification
stage, implemented by a multi-layer perceptron. Both stages are trained jointly. On phoneme recognition and on large vocabulary continuous speech recognition task, we showed that the system is
able to learn features from the raw speech signal, and yielded performance similar or better than
conventional ANN based system that takes cepstral features as input. The proposed system needed
less parameters to yield similar performance with conventional systems, suggesting that the learned
features seems to be somehow more efficient than cepstral-based features.
Motivated by these studies, the goal of the present paper is to ascertain the capability of the convolutional neural network based system to learn linearly separable features in a data-driven manner. To this aim, we replace the classifier stage of the CNN-based system, which was a non-linear
multi-layer perceptron, by a linear single layer perceptron. Our objective is not to show that the
proposed approach yields state-of-the-art performance, rather show that learning features in a datadriven manner together with the classifier leads to flexible features. Using these features as input for
a linear classifier yields better performance than SLP-based baseline system and almost reach the
performance of MLP-based system.

3

C ONVOLUTIONAL N EURAL N ETWORKS

This section presents the architecture used in the paper. It is similar to the one presented
in (Palaz et al., 2013), and is presented here for the sake of clarity.
3.1

A RCHITECTURE

Our network (see Figure 2) is given a sequence of raw input signal, split into frames, and outputs
a score for each classes, for each frame. The network architecture is composed of several filter
stages, followed by a classification stage. A filter stage involves a convolutional layer, followed by
a temporal pooling layer and a non-linearity (tanh()). Processed signal coming out of these stages
are fed to a classification stage, which in our case can be either a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) or a
linear single layer perceptron (SLP). It outputs the conditional probabilities p(i|x) for each class i,
for each frame x.
3.2

C ONVOLUTIONAL LAYER

While “classical” linear layers in standard MLPs accept a fixed-size input vector, a convolution
layer is assumed to be fed with a sequence of T vectors/frames: X = {x1 x2 . . . xT }. A
convolutional layer applies the same linear transformation over each successive (or interspaced by
dW frames) windows of kW frames. For example, the transformation at frame t is formally written
3

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

Classification stage
(acoustic modeling)

Filter stage (feature learning) × N
Raw speech
input x

Convolution

Max
pooling

tanh(·)

MLP / SLP

p(i|x)

Figure 2: Convolutional neural network based architecture, which estimates the conditional probabilities p(i|x) for each class i, for each frame x. Several stages of convolution/pooling/tanh might
be considered. The classification stage can be a multi-layer perceptron or a single layer perceptron.
as:


xt−(kW −1)/2


..
M
(1)
,
.
t+(kW −1)/2
x
where M is a dout × din matrix of parameters. In other words, dout filters (rows of the matrix M)
are applied to the input sequence.
3.3



M AX - POOLING LAYER

These kind of layers perform local temporal max operations over an input sequence. More formally,
the transformation at frame t is written as:
max

t−(kW −1)/2≤s≤t+(kW −1)/2

xds

∀d

(2)

with x being the input, kW the kernel width and d the dimension. These layers increase the robustness of the network to minor temporal distortions in the input.
3.4

S OFT M AX LAYER

The Sof tmax (Bridle, 1990) layer interprets network output scores fi (x) as conditional probabilities, for each class label i:
efi (x)
p(i|x) = X
(3)
efj (x)
j

3.5

N ETWORK TRAINING

The network parameters θ are learned by maximizing the log-likelihood L, given by:
L(θ) =

N
X
n=1

log(p(in |xn , θ))

(4)

for each input x and label i, over the whole training set (composed of N examples), with respect to the parametersP
of each layer of the network. Defining the logsumexp operation as:
logsumexpi (zi ) = log( i ezi ), the likelihood can be expressed as:
L = log(p(i|x)) = fi (x) − logsumexp(fj (x))

(5)

j

where fi (x) described the network score of input x and class i. The log-likelihood is maximized
using the stochastic gradient ascent algorithm (Bottou, 1991).

4

E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP

In this paper, we investigate using the CNN-based approach on a phoneme recognition task and on
a large vocabulary continuous speech recognition task. In this section, we present the two tasks, the
databases, the baselines and the hyper-parameters of the networks.
4

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

4.1
4.1.1

TASKS
P HONEME RECOGNITION

As a first experiment, we propose a phoneme recognition study, where the CNN-based system is
used to estimate phoneme class conditional probabilities. The decoder is a standard HMM decoder,
with constrained duration of 3 states, and considering all phoneme equally probable.
4.1.2

L ARGE VOCABULARY SPEECH RECOGNITION

We evaluate the scalability of the proposed system on a large vocabulary speech recognition task on
the WSJ corpus. The CNN-based system is used to compute the posterior probabilities of contextdependent phonemes. The decoder is an HMM. The scaled likelihoods are estimated by dividing the
posterior probability by the prior probability of each class, estimated by counting on the training set.
The hyper parameters such as, language scaling factor and the word insertion penalty are determined
on the validation set.
4.2

DATABASES

For the phoneme recognition task, we use the TIMIT acoustic-phonetic corpus. It consists of 3,696
training utterances (sampled at 16kHz) from 462 speakers, excluding the SA sentences. The crossvalidation set consists of 400 utterances from 50 speakers. The core test set was used to report
the results. It contains 192 utterances from 24 speakers, excluding the validation set. The 61 hand
labeled phonetic symbols are mapped to 39 phonemes with an additional garbage class, as presented
in (Lee & Hon, 1989).
The the large vocabulary speech recognition task, we use the the SI-284 set of the Wall Street Journal
(WSJ) corpus (Woodland et al., 1994). It is formed by combining data from WSJ0 and WSJ1
databases, sampled at 16 kHz. The set contains 36416 sequences, representing around 80 hours of
speech. Ten percent of the set was taken as validation set. The Nov’92 set was selected as test set. It
contains 330 sequences from 10 speakers. The dictionary was based on the CMU phoneme set, 40
context-independent phonemes. 2776 tied-states were used in the experiment. They were derived
by clustering context-dependent phones in HMM/GMM framework using decision tree state tying.
The dictionary and the bigram language model provided by the corpus were used. The vocabulary
contains 5000 words.
4.3

F EATURE INPUT

For the CNN-based system, we use raw features as input. They are simply composed of a window
of the temporal speech signal (hence, din = 1 for the first convolutional layer). The speech samples
in the window are normalized to have zero mean and unit variance.
We also performed several baseline experiments, with MFCC as input features. They were computed
(with HTK (Young et al., 2002)) using a 25 ms Hamming window on the speech signal, with a shift
of 10 ms. The signal is represented using 13th-order coefficients along with their first and second
derivatives, computed on a 9 frames context.
4.4

BASELINE SYSTEMS

We compare our approach with the standard HMM/ANN system using cepstral features. We train
a multi-layer perceptron with one hidden layer, referred to as MLP, and a linear single layer perceptron, referred to as SLP. The system inputs are MFCC with several frames of preceding and
following context. We do not pre-train the network. The MLP baseline performance is consistent
with other works (Fosler & Morris, 2008).
4.5

N ETWORKS HYPER - PARAMETERS

The hyper-parameters of the network are: the input window size win , corresponding to the context
taken along with each example, the kernel width kWn , the shift dWn and the number of filters dn
of the nth convolution layer, and the pooling width kWmp . We train the CNN based system with
5

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

several filter stages (composed of convolution and max-pooling layers). We use between one and
five filter stages. In the case of linear classifier, the capacity of the system cannot be tuned directly.
It depends on the size of the input of the classifier, which can be adjusted by manually tuning the
hyper-parameters of the filter stages. The hyper-parameters were tuned by early-stopping on the
frame level classification accuracy on the validation set. Ranges which were considered for the grid
search are reported in Table 1. A fixed learning rate or 10−4 was used. Each example has a duration
of 10 ms. The experiments were implemented using the torch7 toolbox (Collobert et al., 2011).
On the TIMIT corpus, using 2 filter stages, the best performance was found with: 310 ms of context,
30 samples width for the first convolution, 7 frames kernel width for the second convolution, 80
and 60 filters and 3 pooling width. Using 3 filter stages, the best performance was found with: 310
ms of context, 30 samples width for the first convolution, 7 and 7 frames kernel width for the other
convolutions, 80, 60 and 60 filters and 3 pooling width. Using 4 filter stages, the best performance
was found with: 310 ms of context, 30 samples width for the first convolution, 7, 7 and 7 frames
kernel width for the other convolutions, 80, 60, 60 and 60 filters and 3 pooling width. We also set the
hyper-parameters to have a fixed classifier input. They are presented in Table 2. For the baselines,
the MLP uses 500 nodes for the hidden layer and 9 frames as context. The SLP based system uses 9
frames as context.
On the WSJ corpus, using 1 filter stage, the best performance was found with: 210 ms of context, 30
samples width for the first convolution, 80 filters and 50 pooling width. Using 2 filter stages, the best
performance was found with: 310 ms of context, 30 samples width for the first convolution, 7 frames
kernel width for the other convolutions, 80 and 40 filters and 7 pooling width. Using 3 filter stages,
the best performance was found with: 310 ms of context, 30 samples width for the first convolution,
7 and 7 frames kernel width for the other convolutions, 80, 60 and 60 filters and 3 pooling width.
We also ran experiments using hyper-parameters outside the ranges considered previously using 4
filter stages. This experiment has the following hyper-parameters: 310 ms of context, 30 samples
width for the first convolution, 25, 25 and 25 frames kernel width for the other convolutions, 80, 60
and 39 filters and 2 pooling width. For the baselines, the MLP uses 1000 nodes for the hidden layer
and 9 frames as context. The SLP based system uses 9 frames as context.
Table 1: Network hyper-parameters ranges considered for tuning on the validation set.
Hyper-parameter

Units

Range

Input window size (win )
Kernel width of the first conv. (kW1 )
Kernel width of the nth conv. (kWn )
Number of filters per kernel (dout )
Max-pooling kernel width (kWmp )

ms
samples
frames
filters
frames

100-700
10-90
1-11
20-100
2-6

Table 2: Network hyper-parameters for a fixed output size
# conv. layer
1
2
3
4
5

5

win
310
310
430
510
310

kW1
3
3
3
3
3

kW2
na
7
5
5
5

kW3
na
na
5
3
7

kW4
na
na
na
3
7

kW5
na
na
na
na
7

dn
39
39
39
39
39

kWmp
50
7
4
3
2

# output
351
351
351
351
351

R ESULTS

The results for the phoneme recognition task on the TIMIT corpus are presented in Table 3. The
performance is expressed in terms of phone error rate (PER). The number of parameters in the
classifier and in the filter stages are also presented. Using a linear classifier, the proposed CNN-based
system outperforms the MLP based baseline with three or more filter stages. It can be observed that
6

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

the performance of the CNN-based system improves with increase in number of convolution layers
and almost approaches the case where a MLP (with 60 more parameters) is used in the classification
stages. Furthermore, it can be observed that the complexity of the classification stage decreases
drastically with the increase in the number of convolution layers. The results for the proposed
system with a fixed output size is presented in Table 4, along with the baseline performance and
the number of the parameters in the classifier and filter stages. The proposed CNN based system
outperforms the SLP based baseline with the same number of parameters in the classifier. Fixing the
output size seems to degrade the performance compared to Table 3. This indicate that it is better to
treat the feature size also as a hyper-parameter and learn it on the data.

Features
MFCC
RAW
MFCC
RAW
RAW
RAW

Table 3: Results on the TIMIT core testset
# conv. # conv.
# classifier
layers param. Classifier
param.
na
3
na
2
3
4

na
61k
na
36k
61k
85k

MLP
MLP
SLP
SLP
SLP
SLP

200k
470k
14k
124k
36k
7k

PER
33.3 %
29.6 %
51.5 %
38.0 %
31.5 %
30.2 %

Table 4: Results for a fixed output on the TIMIT core testset
Features

# conv.
layers

# conv.
param.

Classifier

# classifier
param.

PER

MFCC
RAW
RAW
RAW
RAW
RAW

na
1
2
3
4
5

na
1.2k
24k
152k
270k
520k

SLP
SLP
SLP
SLP
SLP
SLP

14k
14k
14k
14k
14k
14k

51.5 %
49.3%
38.0 %
33.4 %
34.6 %
33.1 %

The results for the large vocabulary continuous speech recognition task on the WSJ corpus are
presented in Table 5. The performance is expressed in term of word error rate (WER). We observe
a similar trend to the TIMIT results, i.e. with the increase in number of convolution layers the
performance of the system improves. More specifically, it can be observed that with only two
convolution layers the proposed system is able to achieve performance comparable to SLP-based
system with MFCC as input. With three convolution layers the proposed system is approaching the
MLP-based systems. With four convolution layers, the system is able to yield similar performance
with the MLP baseline using MFCC as input.
Overall, it can be observed that the CNN-based approach can lead to systems with simple classifiers,
i.e. with a small number of parameters, thus shifting the system capacity to the feature learning stage
of the system. On the phoneme recognition study (see Table 3), the proposed approach even leads to
a system where most parameters lie in the feature learning stage rather than in the classification stage.
This system yields performance similar to or better than baselines system. On the continuous speech
recognition study, it can be observed that the four convolution layers experiment has five times less
parameters in the classifier than the three layers experiment and still yields better performance. This
four layers experiement is also able to yield similar performance to the MLP-based baseline with
two times less parameters.

6

D ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Traditionally in speech recognition systems, feature extraction and acoustic modeling (classifier
training) are dealt in two separate steps, where feature extraction is knowledge-driven, and classifier
7

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

Table 5: Results on the Nov’92 testset of the WSJ corpus.
Features

# conv.
layers

# conv.
param.

Classifier

# classifier
param.

WER

MFCC
RAW
MFCC
RAW
RAW
RAW
RAW

na
3
na
1
2
3
4

na
55k
na
5k
27k
64k
180k

MLP
MLP
SLP
SLP
SLP
SLP
SLP

3M
3M
1M
1.3M
1M
2.4M
410k

7.0 %
6.7 %
10.9 %
15.5 %
10.5 %
7.6 %
6.9 %

training in data-driven. In the CNN-based approach with raw speech signal as input, both feature
extraction and classifier training is data-driven. Such an approach allows the features to be flexible
as they are learned along with the classifier. It also allows to shift the system capacity from the classifier stage to the feature extraction stage of the system. Our studies indicate that these empirically
learned features can be linearly separable and could yield systems that perform similar to or better
than standard spectral-based systems. This can have potential implication for low resource speech
recognition. This is part of our future investigation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the HASLER foundation (www.haslerstiftung.ch) through the grant
“Universal Spoken Term Detection with Deep Learning” (DeepSTD). The authors also thank their
colleague Ramya Rasipuram for providing the HMM setup for WSJ.

R EFERENCES
Abdel-Hamid, O., Mohamed, A., Jiang, H., and Penn, G. Applying convolutional neural networks
concepts to hybrid NN-HMM model for speech recognition. In Proc. of ICASSP, pp. 4277–4280,
2012.
Bocchieri, E. and Dimitriadis, D. Investigating deep neural network based transforms of robust
audio features for lvcsr. In Proc. of ICASSP, pp. 6709–6713, 2013.
Bottou, L. Stochastic gradient learning in neural networks. In Proceedings of Neuro-Nmes 91,
Nimes, France, 1991. EC2.
Bourlard, H. and Morgan, N. Connectionist speech recognition: a hybrid approach, volume 247.
Springer, 1994.
Bridle, J.S. Probabilistic interpretation of feedforward classification network outputs, with relationships to statistical pattern recognition. In Neuro-computing: Algorithms, Architectures and
Applications, pp. 227–236. 1990.
Collobert, R., Kavukcuoglu, K., and Farabet, C. Torch7: A matlab-like environment for machine
learning. In BigLearn, NIPS Workshop, 2011.
Davis, S. and Mermelstein, P. Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word
recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 28(4):357–366, 1980.
Fosler, E.L. and Morris, J. Crandem systems: Conditional random field acoustic models for hidden markov models. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2008. ICASSP 2008. IEEE
International Conference on, pp. 4049 –4052, April 2008.
Hermansky, H. Perceptual linear predictive (plp) analysis of speech. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 87:1738, 1990.
8

Accepted as a workshop contribution at ICLR 2015

Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G. E., Mohamed, A., Jaitly, N., Senior, A., Vanhoucke, V.,
Nguyen, P., and Sainath, T. N. Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition:
the shared views of four research groups. Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 29(6):8297, 2012.
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., and Teh, Y. W. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural
computation, 18(7):1527–1554, 2006.
Jaitly, N. and Hinton, G. Learning a better representation of speech soundwaves using restricted
boltzmann machines. In Proc. of ICASSP, pp. 5884–5887, 2011.
LeCun, Y. Generalization and network design strategies. In Pfeifer, R., Schreter, Z., Fogelman, F.,
and Steels, L. (eds.), Connectionism in Perspective, Zurich, Switzerland, 1989. Elsevier.
Lee, H., Pham, P., Largman, Y., and Ng, A. Y. Unsupervised feature learning for audio classification
using convolutional deep belief networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
22, pp. 1096–1104, 2009.
Lee, K. F and Hon, H. W. Speaker-independent phone recognition using hidden markov models.
IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 37(11):1641–1648, 1989.
Mohamed, A., Dahl, G.E., and Hinton, G. Acoustic modeling using deep belief networks. IEEE
Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 20(1):14 –22, jan. 2012.
Palaz, D., Collobert, R., and Magimai.-Doss, M. Estimating phoneme class conditional probabilities
from raw speech signal using convolutional neural networks. In Proc. of Interspeech, 2013.
Palaz, D., Magimai.-Doss, M., and Collobert, R. Convolutional neural networks-based continuous
speech recognition using raw speech signal. In Proc. of ICASSP, preprint, April 2015.
Sainath, T. N., Mohamed, A., Kingsbury, B., and Ramabhadran, B. Deep convolutional neural
networks for lvcsr. In Proc. of ICASSP, pp. 8614–8618, 2013a.
Sainath, T.N., Kingsbury, B., Mohamed, A.-R., and Ramabhadran, B. Learning filter banks within
a deep neural network framework. In Proc. of ASRU, pp. 297–302, December 2013b.
Swietojanski, P., Ghoshal, A., and Renals, S. Convolutional neural networks for distant speech
recognition. Signal Processing Letters, IEEE, 21(9):1120–1124, September 2014.
Tüske, Z., Golik, P., Schlüter, R., and Ney, H. Acoustic modeling with deep neural networks using
raw time signal for lvcsr. In Interspeech, pp. 890–894, Singapore, September 2014.
Woodland, P.C., Odell, J.J., Valtchev, V., and Young, S.J. Large vocabulary continuous speech
recognition using htk. In Proc. of ICASSP, volume ii, pp. II/125 –II/128 vol.2, apr 1994.
Young, S., Evermann, G., Kershaw, D., Moore, G., Odell, J., Ollason, D., Valtchev, V., and Woodland, P. The htk book. Cambridge University Engineering Department, 3, 2002.

9

