PaperClip: A Digital Pen Interface for Semantic Speech Editing in Radio Production

Baume C, Plumbley MD, Frohlich D, Calic J. PaperClip: A Digital Pen Interface for Semantic Speech Editing in Radio Production. J Audio Eng Soc. 2018;66(4):241-252. doi:10.17743/jaes.2018.0006

@article{Baume2018_19390,
  author = {Baume, Chris and Plumbley, Mark D. and Frohlich, David and Calic, Janko},
  title = {{PaperClip: A Digital Pen Interface for Semantic Speech Editing in Radio Production}},
  journal = {Journal of the Audio Engineering Society},
  volume = {66},
  number = {4},
  pages = {241--252},
  year = {2018},
  month = apr,
  publisher = {Audio Engineering Society},
  doi = {10.17743/jaes.2018.0006},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2018.0006}
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - PaperClip: A Digital Pen Interface for Semantic Speech Editing in Radio Production
AU  - Baume, Chris
AU  - Plumbley, Mark D.
AU  - Frohlich, David
AU  - Calic, Janko
T2  - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
J2  - J. Audio Eng. Soc.
VL  - 66
IS  - 4
SP  - 241
EP  - 252
PY  - 2018
DA  - 2018/04/06
DO  - 10.17743/jaes.2018.0006
UR  - https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2018.0006
PB  - Audio Engineering Society
LA  - en
AB  - The radio production workflow typically involves recording material, selecting which parts of that material to use, and then editing the desired material down to the final output. Some radio producers find this process easier with paper rather than editing directly on a screen, which makes a transcript the common denominator. However, after deciding which audio they want to use, producers then must use a digital audio workstation to manually execute those editorial decisions, which is a tedious and slow process. In this paper, the authors describe the design, development, and evaluation of PaperClip, a novel system for editing speech recordings directly on a printed transcript using a digital pen. A user study with eight professional radio producers compared editing with the digital pen to editing with a screen interface. The two interfaces each had advantages and disadvantages. The pen interface was better for fast and simple editing of familiar audio when accurate transcripts were available. The screen interface was better for more complex editing with less familiar audio and less accurate transcripts. There was no overall preference.
ER  -