{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02481389578163772, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006203473945409429, 'mean_word_length': 5.133079847908745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The pursuit of invariance in speech signals.

The search for the acoustic properties useful to the listener in extracting the linguistic message from a speech signal is often construed as the task of matching invariant physical properties to invariant phonological percepts; the discovery of the former will explain the latter. These phonological percepts are essentially the phonemes of pregenerative phonology, and they are more or less faithfully reflected in standard alphabetic writing. Thus English deep and doom are supposed to be perceptually identical in their initial /d/s; the orthographic similarity is in agreement with the linguist's "representation" of these forms. The partial identity in spelling is only weak evidence for perceptual invariance, however. First, while some phonemes may comprise a single "sound," others are said by linguists to include phonetically distinct ones. Thus English /p/includes both aspirated and unaspirated voiceless labial stops. The view that it is not the phoneme, but rather the phonetic feature, to which an acoustic invariant might be attributed, raises two questions: (a) Since segments sharing a feature are rarely judged to constitute a single sound, the search for a feature-specific invariant, whose function is to explain perceptual constancy, is deprived of its essential motivation, and (2) there is no more reason to expect the acoustic cues to a feature to be context-independent than is the case with the phoneme. What seems more likely is to find that some phonemes, and some features, are more invariantly marked in the speech signal than others.