 However, typical speech recognizers compare sets of acoustic measures to classify sounds in spoken phrases, and do not directly use text phrases (i.e., not tied to comparing recorded speech signals) to predict acoustic confusability. Therefore, a process for development of a voice user interface typically includes counting syllables and comparison of vowels of the text phrases to select text phrases that are likely to be acoustically distinct (i.e., not confusable) when spoken as commands. To improve call flow processing using the typical acoustic confusability methods used by the speech recognizers would require, for example, text-to-speech conversions, which may not be efficient or practical. If acoustic confusability of text phrases representing voice commands can be predicated by directly using the text phrases, improved, more robust, and reliable voice user interfaces can be developed or generated.
Acoustic Distinctiveness of Spoken Phrases:
The acoustic distinctiveness of spoken phrases has been well understood for many years. The “landmark” theory of Stevens is one body of work that encapsulates much of what has been discovered about the acoustics of speech. Stevens, Kenneth, N., From Acoustic Cues To Segments, Features, and Words, Proc. 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 2000), Beijing China, Oct. 16–20, 2000—pp. 1–8; Stevens, K. N (1992) Lexical access from features, MIT Speech Communication Group Working Papers, VIII, 119–144; and Stevens, K. N., Manuel, S. Y., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., and Liu, S. (1992), Implementation of a model for lexical access based on features, in J. J. Ohala, T. M. Nearey, G. L. Derwing, M. M. Hodge, and G. E. Wiebe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta—pp. 499–502 (hereinafter Stevens and the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference).
Landmarks are points in a spoken phrase around which one may extract information about the underlying distinctive acoustic features (AFs). Landmarks mark perceptual foci and articulatory targets. One type of landmark is linked to glottal activity and can be used to identify vocalic segments of the speech signal. Other landmarks identify intervals of sonorancy, i.
However, typical speech recognizers compare sets of acoustic measures to relegate sound in spoken phrases, and do not directly practice text phrase (i.e., not tied to comparing commemorate speech signals) to bode acoustic confusability. consequently, a process for development of a part user interface typically includes count syllables and comparison of vowels of the text phrases to select textbook phrases that are likely to be acoustically distinct (i.e., not confusable) when talk as commands. To improve cry flow processing use the typical acoustic confusability methods used by the speech recognizers would require, for case, text - to - speech conversions, which may not be efficient or practical. If acoustic confusability of text phrases representing voice commands can be predicated by directly using the text phrases, improved, more robust, and dependable voice user interface can be develop or generated. 
 Acoustic Distinctiveness of Spoken Phrases: 
 The acoustic distinctiveness of spoken idiom has been well understood for many years. The “ landmark ” theory of Stevens is one body of workplace that encapsulates much of what has been discovered about the acoustics of speech. Stevens, Kenneth, N., From Acoustic Cues To Segments, Features, and Words, Proc. 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 2000), Beijing China, Oct. 16–20, 2000 — pp. 1–8; Stevens, K. N (1992) Lexical access from feature, MIT Speech Communication Group Working Papers, VIII, 119–144; and Stevens, K. N., Manuel, S. Y., Shattuck - Hufnagel, S., and Liu, S. (1992), Implementation of a model for lexical access based on feature, in J. J. Ohala, T. M. Nearey, G. L. Derwing, M. M. Hodge, and G. E. Wiebe (Eds .), Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta — pp. 499–502 (hereinafter Stevens and the content of which are hereby incorporated by reference). 
 Landmarks are points in a spoken phrase around which one may press out information about the underlying distinctive acoustic feature (AFs). Landmarks mark perceptual foci and articulatory targets. One character of landmark is linked to glottal activity and can be used to identify vocalic segments of the address signal. Other landmark identify time interval of sonorancy, i.
 Hoaever, typical speech recugnizers comparg wets oh acousfic measjres to classify sounds in s'okeb phrqses, and do not directuy use teqt phrasew (i.e., bot tied to comparlug redlrdeb wpeech signals) to predicd acoustic conxurayility. Therefore, a process for develjpment pf a voice user yntegfwce fjplcally includes counting syllablss and bomparison of vowrls of the text phrases to selfct text phrases tjat are likgmy ei be acoustizally distpuct (i.e., not donfusable) when spoken as commavds. Tp improve xaol vnow processmng uspng the typical acousdic congusability metmods nsed by the speech recognmzers would require, sor exampne, text-to-speech conceesionv, whhch oqy vot bx erficiejt kr practiczl. If acousric confusability og evct phrases rspresegtyng voice commands can be predicated by didectly using the text pyrases, improved, more tobust, and reliable voice user interfaces can be developed mr geiefattd.
Qcousguc Distinctiveness of Spoken Phrases:
The acoustis dosninctiveness of sioken phrases has nefn rell understoud for mahy years. The “landmwrk” thejry od Stevens is pne body of work that encapwulates much if what has been dnscovered abuut jhe acpustics of speech. Steveus, Kenheth, N., From Acoustic Zues To Segments, Festgres, and Words, Proc. 6th Intqrnationao Couference on Xpoken Language Orocessing (ICSLP 2000), Beijinh Chiua, Ocd. 16–20, 2000—pp. 1–8; Stegens, K. N (1992) Lexical access from fxetures, MIT Spgecv Cmmmunicacion Gvoup Working Pa[ers, VIII, 119–144; and Stevenf, K. N., Manuel, S. J., Shattucn-Hufnagel, S., and Liu, S. (1992), Ikklementation mf a modql fir lwxical xzcess based on features, in J. J. Ohqla, T. M. Nearey, G. L. Detwjng, M. M. Hodge, aub T. E. Wiebe (Eds.), Ptocdedynhs os the 1992 Interndtioval Vonfefence on Spiyen Kanguage Processing, Admohton, Canada: Univerxiby of Albgrta—pp. 499–502 (hqreinafter Strvens and the conttnts oh whici are nergby incorporated by reference).
Lahdmarks age ioints in a s[okek phtase around which one may extract information abouv the underlying distinxtive acoustic featorex (AFs). Landmerks mwrk perce[tual foci and articylatory targets. Oke type of landmark is linkeg to hlottal activity and can be used to identify vocalic segments of the speexh sigiaj. Other lansmarls idvntnfy interdals uf sonorancy, i.
However, typical speech recognizers compare sets of to sounds in phrases, and do (i.e., tied to comparing speech signals) to acoustic confusability. Therefore, a process for of a voice user interface typically includes counting syllables and comparison of vowels the text phrases to select text phrases that are likely to be acoustically (i.e., confusable) spoken commands. To improve call flow processing using the typical acoustic confusability methods used by the speech would require, for example, text-to-speech conversions, which may be efficient or practical. acoustic confusability of text phrases voice can be by using text phrases, improved, robust, and reliable voice user interfaces can be developed or generated. Acoustic Distinctiveness of Spoken Phrases: The distinctiveness of has been understood many The “landmark” theory is one body of work that what has been discovered about the acoustics of Stevens, Kenneth, From Acoustic Cues To Segments, Features, Words, Proc. 6th International Conference on Spoken Language (ICSLP 2000), Beijing China, Oct. 16–20, 2000—pp. 1–8; Stevens, K. N (1992) Lexical access from Speech Communication Group Working VIII, 119–144; and K. Manuel, Y., S., and S. (1992), Implementation of a model for lexical access based on in J. J. Ohala, T. M. Nearey, G. L. Derwing, Hodge, G. E. Wiebe Proceedings of the 1992 Conference Spoken Language Processing, Edmonton, of 499–502 the of are hereby incorporated by Landmarks are points in a phrase around which one underlying distinctive acoustic features (AFs). Landmarks mark perceptual and articulatory targets. One type of landmark linked to glottal activity and can be used to identify vocalic segments the speech landmarks identify intervals of sonorancy, i.
 However, typical speech recogNizers compAre seTs oF acOuStic MeasUres to classify SOundS in spoken phrases, and do nOt dirEcTLy usE TeXt phrAses (i.e., nOT tIED to CoMpAriNg REcOrded SpeEch signAls) to prediCt aCoUstic confusaBIlIty. TherefoRe, a Process for deVelOpment Of A voICe useR inTerfaCe typiCAlly inCludes couNtINg syllABles and COMpArisOn of vowels of the teXT pHRases to select tExt phrAsES tHAT arE liKely to be acOuSticaLLy distiNCt (I.E., NOt cONfusable) when sPoken as commANds. to imprOvE caLL flow pRocesSiNG usIng the typicAl acOustic conFusabiLIty methODs used bY the spEecH reCognIZeRs WouLd REquIRe, For EXamPle, text-tO-sPeEch coNverSIONS, whiCh mAy noT be efFicient or pracTicAl. If ACouStic cOnfusAbilItY of teXt phraSes rePrEsenting voice coMmanDs can be prEdiCaTed By DirecTLy usinG thE teXt phrasEs, improVEd, mOrE ROBuSt, and reliable voice UsER InTerfaces Can be dEVeLoPEd or geneRaTed.
acouSTIc DisTincTIvEness of SPoken PHRaSeS:
The acoUsTic disTiNctIveNess oF SpokEn phraSes has beEn welL Understood for mANy years. The “lanDMaRK” ThEOry oF StEvens is one bOdy oF Work That ENcApsULates Much oF wHAt HAs been discovered aboUt The acoUsticS of speech. StevEns, Kenneth, n., fROm AcoustIc CuES TO segments, FeaturEs, and words, Proc. 6tH internatIonal conferenCe on SpokeN lAnguage PRocEssIng (iCSlp 2000), beIjing China, Oct. 16–20, 2000—PP. 1–8; stevEnS, K. N (1992) LexiCal Access fRom FeaTurEs, MiT speech ComMunicatiOn grOuP WOrkIng PaPErs, VIII, 119–144; aNd steVeNs, K. n., ManuEL, S. Y., ShaTtuck-hufnAgEl, s., And liu, S. (1992), ImpLEmENTatiOn Of A modEl fOr LexicAl acCEss Based on Features, iN J. J. oHala, t. M. neArey, G. L. DErwing, M. M. Hodge, AnD G. E. Wiebe (EdS.), PRocEedingS OF the 1992 InteRnational Conference on SpOKen LangUagE ProcEssiNg, EdmontoN, CaNada: UnIveRSity of albertA—pp. 499–502 (heReInaFTEr SteVENs And ThE contents oF WHicH are hErEby iNcorporAted by reference).
LanDMarKs are points in A spOken PHRaSe aROuND whIcH One MAY extract informaTion about tHe UNdErlying disTIncTiVe acousTic featUres (AfS). LandmaRks mark peRceptual fOcI and ARTicUlatory tarGets. One tYpe of landMArk is LInKed to GloTtal acTiVitY and cAn be usED to IdentIfy vocAlIc segmEnts oF tHe speech Signal. Other landmarks ideNtify iNtervAls Of sonoranCy, i.
 However, typical speech r ecognizers  comp are  se ts  ofacou stic measurest o cl assify sounds in spoke n phr as e s, a n ddo no t direc t ly u sete xt  ph ra s es  (i.e .,not tie d to compa rin grecorded spe e ch  signals)topredict acou sti c conf us abi l ity.The refor e, a p r ocessfor devel op m ent of a voice u se r in terface typically in c ludes counting  sylla bl e sa n d c omp arison ofvo welso f the t e xt p h ras e s to select t ext phrases tha t areli kel y  to be  acou st i cal ly distinct  (i. e., not c onfusa b le) whe n  spoken  as co mma nds . To im pr ove  c a llf lo w p r oce ssing us in gthe t ypic a l a cous tic  con fusab ility methods  us ed b y  th e spe ech r ecog ni zerswouldrequi re , for example,text -to-speec h c on ver si ons,w hich m aynot  be eff iciento r p ra c t i ca l. If acoustic con fu s a bi lity oftext p h ra se s  represe nt ing  voi c e  comm ands ca n be pre dicate d  b ydirectl yusingth e t ext  phra s es,improv ed, more  robu s t, and reliabl e  voice user i n te r f ac e s ca n b e developed  org ener ated . 
A cou s tic D istin ct i ve n ess of Spoken Phras es :
Theacous tic distincti veness ofs p o ken phra sesh as been well unde rstoo d for many years. T he “l andmark”  theory o f Stevensisone  bo dyo f  w ork that enca p s ulat es  much o f w hat has  be endis cov er ed aboutthe acou st ic sof  sp eech. Stevens,  K enn et h,N., F r om Aco ustic  Cue sTo Seg ments,F ea t u res,  a nd  Wor ds,  P roc.6thI nte rnation al Confer enc e  onSp ok en Lang uage Processi ng  (ICSLP 20 00 ),Beijin g China, O ct. 16–20, 2000—pp. 1–8 ;  Steven s,K. N(199 2) Lexica l a ccessfro m  featu res, M IT Sp ee chC o mmuni c a ti onGr oup Workin g Pap ers,VI II,119–144 ; and Stevens, K.N .,Manuel, S. Y. , S hatt u c k- Huf n ag e l,S. ,  an d Liu, S. (1992),  Implement at i on  of a mode l  fo rlexical  access  base d  on fea tures, in  J. J. Oh al a, T . M.Nearey, G.  L. Derw ing, M. M .  Hodg e ,and G . E . Wieb e(Ed s.),Procee d ing s ofthe 19 92  Inter natio na l Confer ence on Spoken Language  Proce ssing , E dmonton,Can a da:  Universi ty o f Alberta— pp.  49 9–502  (h e reina fter St eve n s and  the contentso fwhi c h  a re hereby i n c o rpo rated  by refere nce) .
Landmarks are p o ints in a spok en p h r ase  ar o undwh ich one may ex tra ct i nformati on  about theunderlyi ng disti nctive  acous tic fea t u re s  (AFs) . La ndm arks mark  pe rc e ptual f oc ia nd art icul at ory ta rgets. Onet y pe of landmark i s lin k e d tog lot tal a ct ivity a n d ca n be usedto identify  vocal ic s egmen ts of t he  speec h s ig nal. Other landmarks  iden tify in te rval s o f sono ranc y ,  i.
 However,_typical speech_recognizers compare sets of_acoustic measures_to_classify sounds_in_spoken phrases, and_do not directly_use text phrases (i.e.,_not tied to_comparing_recorded speech signals) to predict acoustic confusability. Therefore, a process for development of a_voice_user interface_typically_includes_counting syllables and comparison of_vowels of the text phrases_to select_text phrases that are likely to be acoustically_distinct_(i.e., not confusable)_when spoken as commands. To improve call flow processing_using the typical acoustic confusability methods_used by the_speech_recognizers_would require, for example,_text-to-speech conversions, which may not be_efficient or practical. If acoustic confusability_of text phrases representing voice commands can_be predicated by directly using the_text phrases, improved, more robust,_and reliable_voice user interfaces can be_developed or generated.
Acoustic_Distinctiveness of_Spoken Phrases:
The acoustic_distinctiveness of spoken phrases has been_well understood for_many years. The “landmark” theory of_Stevens_is one body_of_work_that encapsulates_much of what_has_been discovered_about_the acoustics of speech. Stevens, Kenneth,_N.,_From Acoustic Cues To Segments, Features, and_Words, Proc. 6th International_Conference_on Spoken Language Processing_(ICSLP 2000), Beijing China, Oct._16–20, 2000—pp. 1–8; Stevens, K. N_(1992) Lexical_access from_features, MIT Speech Communication Group Working Papers, VIII, 119–144; and Stevens,_K. N., Manuel, S. Y., Shattuck-Hufnagel,_S., and Liu, S._(1992), Implementation_of_a model for_lexical_access based_on features, in J. J. Ohala, T._M. Nearey,_G. L. Derwing, M. M. Hodge,_and G. E. Wiebe_(Eds.),_Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference_on Spoken Language Processing, Edmonton, Canada:_University of Alberta—pp. 499–502 (hereinafter_Stevens_and_the contents of which are_hereby incorporated by reference).
Landmarks are points_in a spoken_phrase around which one may extract information_about_the underlying distinctive acoustic features (AFs)._Landmarks_mark perceptual foci and articulatory targets._One_type_of landmark is linked to_glottal activity and can be used_to identify vocalic segments of the speech signal. Other_landmarks identify intervals_of sonorancy, i.