MorphoBank is a web application for collaborative evolutionary research, specifically phylogenetic systematics or cladistics, on the phenotype. Historically, scientists conducting research on phylogenetic systematics have worked individually or in small groups employing traditional single-user software applications such as MacClade, Mesquite and Nexus Data Editor. As the hypotheses under study have grown more complex, large research teams have assembled to tackle the problem of discovering the Tree of Life for the estimated 4-100 million living species(Wilson 2003, pp. 77–80) and the many thousands more extinct species known from fossils. Because the phenotype is fundamentally visual, and as phenotype-based phylogenetic studies have continued to increase in size, it becomes important that observations be backed up by labeled images. Traditional desktop software applications currently in wide use do not provide robust support for team-based research or for image manipulation and storage. MorphoBank is a particularly important tool for the growing scientific field of phenomics. The development of MorphoBank, which began in 2001, has been funded by the National Science Foundation's Directorates for Geosciences, Biological Sciences and Computer and Information Science and Engineering. The significance of the scientific work on MorphoBank has been featured in the New York Times(here and here), among other publications. == Advantages == Teams of scientists studying phylogenetics to build the Tree of Life assemble large spreadsheets of observations about species (referred to as "matrices"). These teams require simultaneous access by each team member to a single and secure copy of the team's data during a scientific research project. This single copy of the data also changes with great frequency during the data collection phase. Images that can be very helpful for documenting homology statements must be displayed, labeled and shared as homology statements develop. This cannot be accomplished elegantly with a desktop software package alone because in a desktop environment each collaborator is working on his own private copy of project data. Changes made by one participant cannot automatically propagate to others, preventing collaborators from seeing each other's data edits until they are manually (and due to the effort involved, often only periodically) merged into a single "true" dataset. In all but the smallest and most disciplined of teams, file version control and the reconciliation of changes made on multiple copies of the data emerge quickly as significant drags on productivity. MorphoBank is an attempt to address these issues by leveraging the ubiquity of the web and modern web-based application techniques, including Ajax, web service layers, and rich web applications to provide a full-featured, net-accessible collaborative workspace for phylogenetic research. In particular, MorphoBank makes it easy to: Share all kinds of data with geographically separated team members, including taxonomy, character and specimen data, media (including images, video and audio), phylogenetic matrices (including data in the widely used NEXUS and TNT format) and other data such as documents and genetic sequences. Label high-resolution images using a web-based image annotation application. Collaboratively edit project data such as phylogenetic matrices using a built-in web-based matrix editor. The editor allows the linking of labeled images to individual cells of a matrix. Manage access to project data. Access ranges from full-access for team members to anonymous read-only access for potential reviewers. Publish completed project data on the web in support of a published paper with a persistent URL. Search The Encyclopedia of Life for taxon exemplar images. Store high resolution CT data Create ontologies for updating and populating matrix cells. These tasks are difficult or impossible in most existing software applications. == History == In 2001 the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a workshop, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York to develop the outlines of a web-based system for a collaborative, media-rich research tool for morphological phylogenetics. An application prototype presented at the workshop was later refined with feedback from the workshop and became MorphoBank version 1.0. A grant from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded further revisions resulting in version 2.0, released in 2005. Current support from the NSF is funding current feature enhancements to MorphoBank. MorphoBank was hosted by Stony Brook University until late October 2021 and received back up support from the American Museum of Natural History. The current version is 3.0. Rationale for the software was described in the journal Cladistics. MorphoBank has also received support from NESCENT and the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Since 2018, MorphoBank has been supported in part by Phoenix Bioinformatics, a non-profit company founded to sustain databases for the basic sciences. A permanent move of MorphoBank from Stony Brook University to Phoenix Bioinformatics was complete in late October 2021. The San Diego Supercomputer Center has previously provided technical and hosting resources to the MorphoBank project. == Usage == MorphoBank hosts the products of peer-reviewed scientific research on phenotypes. An increasing volume of systematics data is "born digital" and MorphoBank is well suited to handle this type of material. On August 24, 2007, 62 active research projects were hosted by MorphoBank, as well as 6 completed (and published) projects. By 2017 over 2000 scientists and their students were registered content builders (users are not required to register and are even more numerous) and has more than 500 publicly available projects with approximately 80,000 images that are the products of scientific research. Over 1,500 active research projects are hosted by MorphoBank. The software has been used to assemble phylogenetic research on such groups as mammals, from bats to whales, bivalve molluscs, arachnids, fossil plants and living and extinct amniotes. It has also been used more broadly in evolutionary and paleontological research to host curated images associated with published research on lacewing insects geckos, raptor birds, dinosaurs, frogs and nematodes. MorphoBank is increasingly used in conjunction with the Paleobiology Database. Example published projects: Project 1097: Blank CE, 2013 Origin and early evolution of photosynthetic eukaryotes in freshwater environments – reinterpreting proterozoic paleobiology and biogeochemical processes in light of trait evolution Project 2520: Carvalho, T. P., R. E. Reis, and J. P. Friel, 2017 A new species of Hoplomyzon (Siluriformes: Aspredinidae) from Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela: osteological description using high-resolution Project 2651: Baron, M. G., Norman, D. B., Barrett, P. M., 2017 A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution MorphoBank has been particularly important to the Assembling the Tree of Life initiative sponsored by the National Science Foundation. MorphoBank is well-suited to such projects because of its tools for merging taxonomic, character and matrix-based data, as well as its collaborative features. Highlights of this research include a collaborative matrix on mammal evolution published in Science that included over 4,000 phenomic characters scored for over 80 species, a matrix on extant baleen whales featuring nearly 600 images, and more.
Rhetorical structure theory
Rhetorical structure theory (RST) is a theory of text organization that describes relations that hold between parts of text. It was originally developed by William Mann, Sandra Thompson, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen and others at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI) and defined in a 1988 paper. The theory was developed as part of studies of computer-based text generation. Natural language processing researchers later began using RST in automatic summarization and other applications. It explains coherence by postulating a hierarchical, connected structure of texts, which are labeled using a small, predefined inventory of relation types - for example, one part of a text may provide an elaboration on another part, provide background or specify a cause for another. In the 2000s, following the release of the first large-scale dataset implementing the theory, the RST Discourse Treebank (RST-DT), Daniel Marcu demonstrated the feasibility of practical applications of RST to discourse parsing and summarization at ISI. Originally limited to written text, subsequent work in the 2010s expanded RST to spoken language analysis, and the framework has been applied to a variety of languages including Farsi, German, Mandarin Chinese, Russian and Spanish. Following the introduction of Transformers, LLMs have been applied to automatic RST parsing, with results approaching human performance on parsing text in English. == Rhetorical relations == Rhetorical relations, also called coherence or discourse relations, are paratactic (coordinate) or hypotactic (subordinate) relations that hold across two or more text spans. The logical arrangement of relations in a text contributes to its coherence by connecting different propositions in a relational structure. RST using rhetorical relations provides a systematic way for an analyst to analyze the underlying intention of a text. The analysis is usually built by reading the text and constructing a tree using the relations. The following example is a title and summary, appearing at the top of an article in Scientific American magazine (adapted from Ramachandran and Anstis, 1986). The original text, broken into numbered units, is: [Title:] The Perception of Apparent Motion [Abstract:] When the motion of an intermittently seen object is ambiguous the visual system resolves confusion by applying some tricks that reflect a built-in knowledge of properties of the physical world. In the figure, the numbers 1-5 show the corresponding units from the text above. Unit 5 provides an "elaboration" on unit 4, and therefore constitutes a less prominent satellite of unit 4, which acts as a nucleus for the relation. Units 4-5 form a relation "Means", explaining the means by which the visual system resolves confusion. Unit 3 is the Central Discourse Unit (CDU) of the text, since all units point to it directly or indirectly. Similarly units 1 and 2 form "preparation" and "circumstance" relations relative to their nuclei. Groups of units which serve as a satellite or nucleus together are called complex discourse units, and always span a set of adjacent EDUs. == Nuclearity in discourse == RST establishes two different types of units. Nuclei are considered as the most important parts of text whereas satellites contribute to the nuclei and are secondary. Nucleus contains basic information and satellite contains additional information about nucleus. The satellite is often incomprehensible without nucleus, whereas a text where satellites have been deleted can be understood to a certain extent. == Hierarchy in the analysis == RST relations are applied recursively in a text, until all units in that text are constituents in an RST relation. The result of such analyses is that RST structure are typically represented as trees, with one top level relation that encompasses other relations at lower levels. == Why RST? == From linguistic point of view, RST proposes a different view of text organization than most linguistic theories. RST points to a tight relation between relations and coherence in text From a computational point of view, it provides a characterization of text relations that has been implemented in different systems and for applications as text generation and summarization. == In design rationale == Computer scientists Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souz have used RST as the basis of a design rationale system called ADD+. In ADD+, RST is used as the basis for the rhetorical organization of a knowledge base, in a way comparable to other knowledge representation systems such as issue-based information system (IBIS). Similarly, RST has been used in representation schemes for argumentation.
Is an Conversational AI Platform Worth It in 2026?
Looking for the best conversational AI platform? An conversational AI platform is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right conversational AI platform slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Glottochronology
Glottochronology (from Attic Greek γλῶττα 'tongue, language' and χρόνος 'time') is the part of lexicostatistics which involves comparative linguistics and deals with the chronological relationship between languages. The idea was developed by Morris Swadesh in the 1950s in his article on Salish internal relationships. He developed the idea under two assumptions: there indeed exists a relatively stable basic vocabulary (referred to as Swadesh lists) in all languages of the world; and, any replacements happen in a way analogous to radioactive decay in a constant percentage per time elapsed. Using mathematics and statistics, Swadesh developed an equation to determine when languages separated and give an approximate time of when the separation occurred. His methods aimed to aid linguistic anthropologists by giving them a definitive way to determine a separation date between two languages. The formula provides an approximate number of centuries since two languages were supposed to have separated from a singular common ancestor. His methods also purported to provide information on when ancient languages may have existed. Despite multiple studies and literature containing the information of glottochronology, it is not widely used today and is surrounded with controversy. Glottochronology tracks language separation from thousands of years ago but many linguists are skeptical of the concept because it is more of a 'probability' rather than a 'certainty.' On the other hand, some linguists may say that glottochronology is gaining traction because of its relatedness to archaeological dates. Glottochronology is not as accurate as archaeological data, but some linguists still believe that it can provide a solid estimate. Over time many different extensions of the Swadesh method evolved; however, Swadesh's original method is so well known that 'glottochronology' is usually associated with him. == Methodology == The original method of glottochronology presumed that the core vocabulary of a language is replaced at a constant (or constant average) rate across all languages and cultures and so can be used to measure the passage of time. The process makes use of a list of lexical terms and morphemes which are similar to multiple languages. Lists were compiled by Morris Swadesh and assumed to be resistant against borrowing (originally designed in 1952 as a list of 200 items, but the refined 100-word list in Swadesh (1955) is much more common among modern day linguists). The core vocabulary was designed to encompass concepts common to every human language such as personal pronouns, body parts, heavenly bodies and living beings, verbs of basic actions, numerals, basic adjectives, kin terms, and natural occurrences and events. Through a basic word list, one eliminates concepts that are specific to a particular culture or time period. It has been found through differentiating word lists that the ideal is really impossible and that the meaning set may need to be tailored to the languages being compared. Word lists are not homogenous throughout studies and they are often changed and designed to suit both languages being studied. Linguists find that it is difficult to find a word list where all words used are culturally unbiased. Many alternative word lists have been compiled by other linguists and often use fewer meaning slots. The percentage of cognates (words with a common origin) in the word lists is then measured. The larger the percentage of cognates, the more recently the two languages being compared are presumed to have separated. === Glottochronologic constant === Determining word lists rely on morpheme decay or change in vocabulary. Morpheme decay must stay at a constant rate for glottochronology to be applied to a language. This leads to a critique of the glottochronologic formula because some linguists argue that the morpheme decay rate is not guaranteed to stay the same throughout history. American Linguist Robert Lees obtained a value for the "glottochronological constant" (r) of words by considering the known changes in 13 pairs of languages using the 200 word list. He obtained a value of 0.8048 ± 0.0176 with 90% confidence. For his 100-word list Swadesh obtained a value of 0.86, the higher value reflecting the elimination of semantically unstable words. === Divergence time === The basic formula of glottochronology proposed by Morris Swadesh is: t = − ln ( c ) 2 ln ( r ) {\displaystyle t=-{\frac {\ln(c)}{2\ln(r)}}} t = a given period of time from one stage of the language to another (measured in millennia), c = proportion of wordlist items retained at the end of that period and r = rate of replacement for that word list. By testing historically verifiable cases in which t is known by nonlinguistic data (such as the approximate distance from Classical Latin to modern Romance languages), Swadesh arrived at the empirical value of approximately 0.14 for L, (c?) which means that the rate of replacement constitutes around 14 words from the 100-wordlist per millennium. This is represented in the table below. === Results === Glottochronology was applied to a range of language families, including Salishan, Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic, Chinese and Mayan and other American languages. For Amerind, correlations have been obtained with radiocarbon dating and blood groups as well as archaeology. === Example Wordlist === Below is an example of a basic word list composed of basic Turkish words and their English translations. == Discussion == The concept of language change is old, and its history is reviewed in Hymes (1973) and Wells (1973). In some sense, glottochronology is a reconstruction of history and can often be closely related to archaeology. Many linguistic studies find the success of glottochronology to be found alongside archaeological data. Glottochronology itself dates back to the mid-20th century. An introduction to the subject is given in Embleton (1986) and in McMahon and McMahon (2005). Glottochronology has been controversial ever since, partly because of issues of accuracy but also because of the question of whether its basis is sound (for example, Bergsland 1958; Bergsland and Vogt 1962; Fodor 1961; Chrétien 1962; Guy 1980). The concerns have been addressed by Dobson et al. (1972), Dyen (1973) and Kruskal, Dyen and Black (1973). The assumption of a single-word replacement rate can distort the divergence-time estimate when borrowed words are included (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). The presentations vary from "Why linguists don't do dates" to the one by Starostin discussed below. Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional comparative method. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion: Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list. Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate. Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for Icelandic constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected Riksmal (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium). That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, which is a serious accusation since evidence that can be used to "calibrate" the meaning of L (language history recorded during prolonged periods of time) is not overwhelmingly large in the first place. It is highly likely that the chance of replacement is different for every word or feature ("each word has its own history", among hundreds of other sources:). That global assumption has been modified and downgraded to single words, even in single languages, in many newer attempts (see below). There is a lack of understanding of Swadesh's mathematical/statistical methods. Some linguists reject the methods in full because the statistics lead to 'probabilities' when linguists trust 'certainties' more. A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable. == Modifications == Somewhere in between the original concept of Swadesh and the rejection of glottochronology in its entirety lies the idea that glottochronology as a formal method of linguistic
MedSLT
MedSLT is a medium-ranged open source spoken language translator developed by the University of Geneva. It is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The system has been designed for the medical domain. It currently covers the doctor-patient diagnosis dialogues for the domains of headache, chest and abdominal pain in English, French, Japanese, Spanish, Catalan and Arabic. The vocabulary used ranges from 350 to 1000 words depending on the domain and language pair. == Motivation for creating MedSLT == With more than 6000 languages worldwide, language barriers become an increasing problem for healthcare. The lack of medical interpreters can lead to disastrous consequences. These range from prolonged hospital stays to wrong diagnosis and medication. A study found that only about half of the 23 million people with limited proficiency in English in the United States had been provided with a medical interpreter. Millions of refugees and immigrants worldwide face similar problems, although not always as severe. The gap between need and availability of language services might be closed with speech translation systems. == Challenges == The biggest challenge is and was to develop an ideal system, though it is not possible to do so at this moment. This system would fit the needs of doctors and the patients alike, and would provide accurate and flexible translation. A realisation of an ideal translation tool is impossible without the use of unrestricted language and a large vocabulary. Medical professionals demand high reliability from translation. This favours rule-based architectures over data-driven. The latter are more suitable for inexperienced users. Rule-based architectures achieve higher accuracy especially if used by experts. Though it is highly desirable to build a bidirectional system supporting a two-way dialogue, which concentrates on patient-centered communication, the patients will have difficult access to the system. Most patients have no experience with such systems. Less reliable results for translation from the patient-to-doctor direction are the outcome. To overcome this the system needs to provide either easy access or an integrated help tool to guide the users through the process. Although controlled rule-based systems achieve good results, they are brittle. To receive good translations the user needs to be familiar with the system and has to know what is covered by the grammar. Covering different sub-domains (headache, chest and abdominal pain) and language pairs presents additional problems. A shared structure and grammar for all subdomains and language pairs minimises development and maintenance costs. The integration of new doctor and patient languages is also a key challenge. Adding new languages should be quick and rather simple, because he system has to be used in many countries to cover multiple language pairs. Direct translation from source to target language proves to be rather difficult. Using interlingua for unidirectional translation instead of a bidirectional approach helps to simplify the translation process. On top of this, the system has to run on different platforms, because mobility is a key issue for many attending physicians. A portable version addresses these issues, but has to deal with the heavy load of the translation process. == The MedSLT system == The system's speech recognition is based on the Nuance 8.5 platform that supports grammar-based language models. All grammars used for recognition, analysis and generation are compiled from a small set of unification grammars. These core grammars are created by the open-source Regulus Grammar Compiler and are automatically specialised using corpus-driven methods. The specialisation considers both the task (recognition, analysis and generation) and the sub-domain (headache, chest and abdominal pain). The specialisation uses the explanation-based learning algorithm to create a treebank from the training corpus. These examples are divided into sets of subtrees by using domain- and grammar-specific rules (also known as "operationality criteria" in machine translation). The subtree rules are combined into a single rule, creating a specialised unification grammar. The grammar is compiled to an executable form, for analysis and generation by a parser or generator, and for recognition of a CFG grammar. A CFG grammar is required for the Nuance engine. Compilation by Nuance-specific criteria turns the grammar into speech recognition packages. The final step uses the training corpus again for statistical tuning of the language model. MedSLT translation processes are based on a rule-based interlingua. The interlingua is treated as an actual language (it is a very simple version of English) and is specified by a Regulus grammar. This grammar does not take account of complex surface syntax phenomena of real languages like movement or agreement. A set of rules is the base for translating the source language semantic representation to interlingua. Another set of rules covers the translation from interlingua to the target language. The semantic representations are converted to surface words using a target language grammar. Defining semantics for a specific domain enables the developers to specify interlingua with a small, tightly constraint semantic grammar. The translations based on interlingua match direct translations almost perfectly, because the development shifts to a decoupled monolingual architecture. A set of combined interlingua corpora, with one corpus per sub-domain, is the core of this architecture. All source language development corpora are translated to interlingua. These are sorted and grouped together with the corresponding source language examples. The interlingua forms are then translated into each target language, and the results are attached together. This organisation improves the translation process. There is no duplicated effort for multilingual regression testing, because each parsing and generation step is performed once. This allows more frequent testing. The representation language used for all forms is Almost Flat Functional semantics. AFF is derived from the Spoken Language Translator, the precursor of MEdSLT. SLT uses Quasi Logical Form, a logical based representation language. QLF is an expressive yet very complex language, causing high development and maintenance costs. A minimal solution was planned for the medical translator. Early versions of the system utilised a language using simple feature-value lists. These lists were supplemented with an optional level of nesting to represent subordinate clauses (i.e. embedded clauses). Determiners were not included, because they are hard to translate and it is difficult to reliably distinguish and recognise them. This way, translation rules became a lot simpler, because only a list of feature-value pairs had to be mapped to another list of pairs. The language turned out to be underconstrained. Adding natural sortal constraints to the grammar solved this problem, but also returned the language to a more expressive formalism. The newly created AFF combines elements of QLF and the feature-value list semantics. This version of flat semantics is enhanced with additional functional markings. This together with a relatively small vocabulary solved the ambiguity problem of the original flat representation language without creating overly complex rules. In addition, the syntactic structures are treated carefully by a compromise of linguistic and engineering traditions. The grammars are in fact retrieved from linguistically motivated resource, using corpus-based methods. They are driven by small sets of examples. This results in simpler and flatter domain-specific grammars. The semantics are less sophisticated and represent a minimal approach in the engineering tradition. Each lexical item contributes a set of feature-value pairs. This leads to simple-to-write translation rules. There are only lists of features-value pairs to map to other feature-value pairs. However, as a result the machine translation channel model becomes underspecified and is weakened, whereas the target language model is strengthened. An intelligent help module is integrated into the system to support users in utilising the full coverage of the grammars. This tool provides the user with examples as close as possible to the users original utterance. The output is based on a library. Each sub-domain and language pair has its own library. The contents are extracted from the combined interlingua corpora. The help module scans the corpus for the tagged source language form mapped with the corresponding target language form. Additionally a second statistical recogniser is used as backup. The results are used to select similar examples from the library. According to the generation preferences, one of the derived strings is picked and the target language string is realised as spoken language. Some statistical corpus based meth
Sensory, Inc.
Sensory, Inc. is an American company which develops software AI technologies for speech, sound and vision. It is based in Santa Clara, California. Sensory’s technologies have shipped in over three billion products from hundreds of leading consumer electronics manufacturers including AT&T, Hasbro, Huawei, Google, Amazon, Samsung, LG, Mattel, Motorola, Plantronics, GoPro, Sony, Tencent, Garmin, LG, Microsoft, Lenovo, and more. Sensory has over 60 issued patents covering speech recognition in consumer electronics, biometric authentication, sensor/speech combinations, wake word technology, and more. == History == Sensory, Inc. was founded in 1994, originally as Sensory Circuits, by Forrest Mozer, Mike Mozer and Todd Mozer. The three had also co-founded ESS Technology years earlier. In 1999 Sensory acquired Fluent Speech Technologies, which was formed and started by a group of professors out of the Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGI, now OHSU). Fluent Speech Technologies developed high performance embedded speech engines, the technology from this acquisition is now the core technology used throughout Sensory's chip and software line. === Company timeline === 1994 – Founded 1995 – Introduces the RSC 164 - first commercially successful speech recognition IC 1998 – Introduces first speaker verification IC 2000 – Acquires Oregon based Fluent-Speech Technologies 2002 – Acquires Texas Instruments line of speech output ICs (the SC series) 2007 – Introduces first Voice User Interface for Bluetooth silicon (CSR BC-5) - BlueGenie 2008 - Sensory and BlueAnt partner on the V1 - Revolutionary new Bluetooth headset with a voice user interface. First wearable to use a voice user interface for control and best-reviewed speech recognition product in history 2009 – Introduced world's smallest text to speech system (TTS) and Truly HandsfreeTM Triggers/ wake words. 2010 – Introduced the NLP-5x – First Natural Language Voice Processor and TrulyHandsfree wake words in SDKs for Android, iOS, Linux, and Windows. NLP5x used the first generation of TrulyHandsfree wake words with low power and enhanced accuracy. 2011 – Sensory partners with Google and Microsoft to enable TrulyHandsfree as a front end to Goog411 and Bing411 2012 – Partnered with Tensilica to offer ultra-low power TrulyHandsfree wake words; introduced Speaker Verification and Speaker Identification for mobile phones and other consumer electronics. 2012 - TrulyHandsfree released into Samsung's Galaxy S2 for "Hey Galaxy" wake word 2013 – TrulyHandsfree wake words migrated to many new platforms and began shipping as MotoVoice in the Google-owned MotoX. Sensory's TrulyHandsfree in mobile takes off with the Galaxy S3 and S4 and Galaxy Note and is licensed into wearables like Google Glass. 2014 – Announced new initiative in Vision; added LG and Motorola as customers; received the 2014 Global Mobile Award for Best Mobile Technology Breakthrough at the GSMA Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain (judges commented, "A big advance for the wearables market, this offers many benefits for consumers, increasing uptake and usage of many mobile apps, driving revenue for operators and content providers.") 2015-2018 - Licensed Google, Amazon, MSFT, Baidu, Huawei, ZTE, and many others with TrulyHandsfree wake words. Sensory develops first wake words for OK Google, Hey Siri, and Hey Cortana. 2019 - Sensory launched two new solutions: SoundID, sound identification, and TrulyNatural, embedded large vocabulary speech recognition. Sensory also acquired Vocalize.ai, an independent testing lab. 2020 - Sensory introduced VoiceHub, which allows the automated generation of wake words. 2021 - Sensory expands VoiceHub with speech recognition and NLU capabilities. The company initiated a new cloud platform, SensoryCloud.ai. 2022-Sensory rolls out SensoryCloud.ai with speech to text, text to speech, face & voice biometrics 2024- Sensory Automotive & TrulyNatural Speech-to-text On-Device launched == Technology and products == Sensory originally developed both hardware (Integrated Circuit - IC or "chip") and software platforms but migrated to software only around 2005 and added cloud and hybrid computing capabilities in 2021. Sensory's RSC-164 IC (Integrated Circuit or "chip") was used on NASA's Mars Polar Lander in the Mars Microphone on the Lander. Speech Synthesis SC-6x chips – acquired some speech synthesis technology from Texas Instruments. Sensory’s embedded AI solutions include the following: TrulyHandsfree (THF) - wake word detection and phrase spotting. TrulyNatural (TNL) - large vocabulary continuous speech recognition with NLU. TrulySecure (TS) - face and voice biometrics. TrulySecureSpeakerVerification (TSSV) - speaker and sound identification. VoiceHub - Online portal for creating custom wake words and speech recognition models with NLU. Sensory Automotive- Sensory Automotive is a full voice and vision suite of AI technologies that operate efficiently in the car without connecting to a network. The cloud initiative, SensoryCloud.ai, is targeting Speech To Text (STT), Text To Speech (TTS), Wake Word verification, face and voice recognition, and sound identification.
Best AI Image Generators in 2026
Comparing the best AI image generator? An AI image generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI image generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.