Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2308.14774

EEG-Derived Voice Signature for Attended Speaker Detection

Hongxu Zhu·Siqi Cai·Yidi Jiang·Qiquan Zhang·Haizhou Li
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

\textit{Objective:} Conventional EEG-based auditory attention detection (AAD) is achieved by comparing the time-varying speech stimuli and the elicited EEG signals. However, in order to obtain reliable correlation values, these methods necessitate a long decision window, resulting in a long detection latency. Humans have a remarkable ability to recognize and follow a known speaker, regardless of the spoken content. In this paper, we seek to detect the attended speaker among the pre-enrolled speakers from the elicited EEG signals. In this manner, we avoid relying on the speech stimuli for AAD at run-time. In doing so, we propose a novel EEG-based attended speaker detection (E-ASD) task. \textit{Methods:} We encode a speaker's voice with a fixed dimensional vector, known as speaker embedding, and project it to an audio-derived voice signature, which characterizes the speaker's unique voice regardless of the spoken content. We hypothesize that such a voice signature also exists in the listener's brain that can be decoded from the elicited EEG signals, referred to as EEG-derived voice signature. By comparing the audio-derived voice signature and the EEG-derived voice signature, we are able to effectively detect the attended speaker in the listening brain. \textit{Results:} Experiments show that E-ASD can effectively detect the attended speaker from the 0.5s EEG decision windows, achieving 99.78\% AAD accuracy, 99.94\% AUC, and 0.27\% EER. \textit{Conclusion:} We conclude that it is possible to derive the attended speaker's voice signature from the EEG signals so as to detect the attended speaker in a listening brain. \textit{Significance:} We present the first proof of concept for detecting the attended speaker from the elicited EEG signals in a cocktail party environment. The successful implementation of E-ASD marks a non-trivial, but crucial step towards smart hearing aids.

Explore related subjects

eess.AScs.SDeess.SPq-bio.QM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hongxu Zhu, Siqi Cai, Yidi Jiang, Qiquan Zhang, Haizhou Li. 2023-08-28. EEG-Derived Voice Signature for Attended Speaker Detection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14774

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Latent Softmax for Data-Efficient Phoneme-Based Multilingual ASR Across Tonal and Non-Tonal Languages

Phoneme-based multilingual automatic speech recognition (ASR) can share acoustic evidence across languages more directly than language-specific subword modeling. When tonal and non-tonal languages are jointly trained, however, their supervision granularity does not match: tonal languages annotate tone-marked vowels, whereas non-tonal languages typically provide only base-vowel labels. A standard softmax either treats the two as unrelated classes, weakening cross-lingual sharing, or collapses tones, losing distinctions required by tonal languages. We propose Latent Softmax, a connectionist temporal classification (CTC)-compatible output layer that models tone-marked vowels as subclasses and base vowels as major classes, while consonants and the CTC blank remain singleton labels. When only a base-vowel major-class label is observed, the tone-marked vowel subclass is treated as latent and marginalized out. Multilingual experiments on AISHELL-1 Mandarin and LibriSpeech English show that Latent Softmax reduces speech-to-phoneme (S2P) phoneme error rates over a standard softmax multilingual baseline by 8.4% on AISHELL-1, 17.5% on LibriSpeech test-clean, and 12.6% on test-other. The improved speech-to-phoneme encoders also yield consistent word error rate gains for both large-language-model phoneme-to-grapheme conversion and projector-based interfaces. After code-switching adaptation, Latent Softmax further reduces projector-based mixed error rate by 2.6% on ASRU2019 and 9.5% on CS-Dialogue datasets.

eess.AS↗
arXiv2026

Learned Bow Control on a Measured Bowed-String Model: a Revised Minimum-Bow-Force Law, a Recurrent Controller, and the Domain of a Supervision Ceiling

A finite-difference bowed-string model with implicitly resolved Stribeck friction is presented, with a regime diagnostic, the Schelleng bow-force limits on four strings, and a comparison of learned bow controllers. Implicit resolution is necessary, and quantitatively so: a lagged contact force cannot capture the string on a discrete grid, so no stick phase forms at any bow force. With friction, impedance and quality factor taken from published measurement rather than fitted, all four strings return a stick fraction of 89.1% against an ideal 90%. Schelleng's maximum bow force is recovered on every string. The minimum is not: it follows $Z v_b β^{-1}$ rather than the predicted $Z^2 v_b β^{-2}$, reducing both squared dependences to first powers. Six controllers at matched capacity, over four strings and twenty seeds each, place a gated recurrent network ahead of a feedforward one, by most under a mid-stroke disturbance. The feedforward network completes more strokes only from a start the model's own playability map places outside the Helmholtz region. A minimal gated variant fails because gates computed from the input alone cannot clear a latched state. Training loss selects neither the capacity nor the context length, and no learned controller improves on the lookup rule that generated its labels. That bound has a domain. Regressing the controller's score on the rule's gives a slope of 0.32, more than ten standard errors below unity, so the controller overtakes the rule where the rule fails and is bounded by it where it holds. Under a rigid finger stop the plant is provably invariant, so transfer loss between pitches belongs to the controller alone and is traced to one feature. A regime classifier without a stick test labels small-amplitude periodic slipping as Helmholtz motion, and a harmonicity measure rates a string the bow never grips above Helmholtz motion.

eess.AS↗
arXiv2026

LLMs and Speech: Integration vs. Combination

In this work, we study different approaches to utilize large language models (LLMs) for automatic speech recognition (ASR). Specifically, we compare the tight integration of an acoustic model (AM) with the LLM ("speech LLM") to the traditional way of combining AM and LLM via shallow fusion and provide ablations on the effect of different label units and LLM sizes. For tight integration, we further examine the effect of attention interfaces, encoder downsampling, and length normalization. Furthermore, we investigate joint recognition with a CTC model to mitigate hallucinations of speech LLMs and present effective optimizations. We train and evaluate on LibriSpeech and Loquacious and additionally evaluate on the HuggingFace ASR leaderboard. Across model sizes, we find that shallow fusion consistently outperforms tight integration of AM and LLM on in-domain data, highlighting the importance of strong shallow-fusion baselines when evaluating speech LLMs for ASR. On the more heterogeneous HuggingFace ASR leaderboard, however, the integrated prefix LLM achieves lower average WER than shallow fusion, with gains concentrated on out-of-domain corpora.

eess.AS↗