English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the quest for greater computer lip-reading performance there are a numberof tacit assumptions which are either present in the datasets (high resolutionfor example) or in the methods (recognition of spoken visual units calledvisemes for example). Here we review these and other assumptions and show thesurprising result that computer lip-reading is not heavily constrained by videoresolution, pose, lighting and other practical factors. However, the workingassumption that visemes, which are the visual equivalent of phonemes, are thebest unit for recognition does need further examination. We conclude thatvisemes, which were defined over a century ago, are unlikely to be optimal fora modern computer lip-reading system.

Some observations on computer lip-reading: moving from the dream to the reality