scholarly journals Modified Golden Codes for Improved Error Rates Through Low Complex Sphere Decoder

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thilagam K ◽  
Jayanthi K
Keyword(s):  
Error Rates ◽  
Sphere Decoder ◽  
Complex Sphere ◽  
Low Complex

scholarly journals MIMO Detector for Uncoded Symbols based on Complex Sphere Decoder and Manhattan Metric

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
Juan Francisco Castillo-León ◽  
Ulises Pineda-Rico ◽  
Enrique Stevens-Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Sphere Decoder ◽  
Complex Sphere ◽  
Manhattan Metric

scholarly journals An Improved Complex Sphere Decoder for V-BLAST Systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 748-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Pham ◽  
K.R. Pattipati ◽  
P.K. Willett ◽  
J. Luo
Keyword(s):  
Sphere Decoder ◽  
Complex Sphere

Perceptual Characteristics of Consonant Production in Apraxia of Speech and Aphasia

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1411-1431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Bislick ◽  
William D. Hula
Keyword(s):  
Error Rate ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Apraxia Of Speech ◽  
Contextual Variables ◽  
Error Type ◽  
Type Distribution ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Syllable Position

Purpose This retrospective analysis examined group differences in error rate across 4 contextual variables (clusters vs. singletons, syllable position, number of syllables, and articulatory phonetic features) in adults with apraxia of speech (AOS) and adults with aphasia only. Group differences in the distribution of error type across contextual variables were also examined. Method Ten individuals with acquired AOS and aphasia and 11 individuals with aphasia participated in this study. In the context of a 2-group experimental design, the influence of 4 contextual variables on error rate and error type distribution was examined via repetition of 29 multisyllabic words. Error rates were analyzed using Bayesian methods, whereas distribution of error type was examined via descriptive statistics. Results There were 4 findings of robust differences between the 2 groups. These differences were found for syllable position, number of syllables, manner of articulation, and voicing. Group differences were less robust for clusters versus singletons and place of articulation. Results of error type distribution show a high proportion of distortion and substitution errors in speakers with AOS and a high proportion of substitution and omission errors in speakers with aphasia. Conclusion Findings add to the continued effort to improve the understanding and assessment of AOS and aphasia. Several contextual variables more consistently influenced breakdown in participants with AOS compared to participants with aphasia and should be considered during the diagnostic process. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9701690

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document