Prosodic Phrasing and Comprehension

Language and Speech

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 391-409

  Sanderman, Angelien A ^a   Collier, René ^b  

^a KPN RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^b PHILIPS RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive load; Comprehension; Prosody; Synthetic speech

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000615879     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002383099704000405     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. BOOGAART, T., & SILVERMAN, K. (1992). Evaluating the overall comprehensibility of speech synthesizers. Proceedings of the International Congress of Speech and Language Processing. vol 2, 1207-1210. Banff.
2. CARLSON, R., GRANSTRÖM, B., NEOVIUS, L., & NORD, L. (1992). The "listening speed" paradigm for synthesis evaluation. Papers from the Sixth Swedish Phonetics Conference (pp.63-66). Gothenburg, Sweden.
3. CUTLER, A. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 55-60.
4. CUTLER, A., & NORRIS, D. (1979). Monitoring sentence comprehension. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Ed.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. (pp.113-134). Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum.
5. FRANKISH, C. (1995). Intonation and auditory grouping in immediate serial recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, S5-S22.
6. HAKES, D. T. & FOSS, D. J. (1970). Decision processes during sentence comprehension: Effects of surface structure reconsidered. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 413-416.
7. JENKINS, J. J., & FRANKLIN, L. D. (1982). Recall of passages of synthetic speech. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20 (4), 203-206.
8. LARKEY, L. S., & DANLEY, M. (1983). Fundamental frequency and sentence comprehension. In MIT Speech Group Working Papers (vol II, pp.25-39).
9. LEE, L., & NUSBAUM H. C. (1989). The effects of perceptual learning on capacity demands for recognizing synthetic speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85 (A).
10. LEVELT, W. J. M. (1978). A survey of studies in sentence perception. In W. J. M. Levelt & G. B. Flores D'Arcais. Studies in perception of language. New York: Wiley.
11. LIVELY, S. E., PISONI, D. B., SUMMERS, W. Van, & BERNACKI, R. H. (1993). Effects of cognitive workload on speech production: Acoustic analyses and perceptual consequences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 2962-2973.
12. LUCE, P. A., FEUSTEL, T. C., & PISONI, D. B. (1983). Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural word lists. Human Factors, 25, 17-32.
13. NEOVIUS, L., & RAGHAVENDRA, P. (1993). Evaluation of comprehension of KTH Text-to-Speech with "listening speed" paradigm. Quarterly Progress and Status Report, Stockholm (pp.2-3, 21-29).
14. NIX, A. J., MEHTA, G., DYE, J., & CUTLER, A. (1993). Phoneme detection as a tool for comparing perception of natural and synthetic speech. Computer Speech and Language, 7, 211-228.
15. PISONI, D. B. (1987). Speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech in a lexical decision task. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 598.
16. PISONI, D. B., & HUNNICUTT, S. (1980). Perceptual evaluation of MITalk: The MIT unrestricted text-to-speech system. IEEE International Conference Rec. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (pp.572-575). New York, IEEE Press.
17. PISONI, D. B., MANOUS, L. M., & DEDINA, M. J. (1987). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: Effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 303-320.
18. PISONI, D. B., NUSBAUM, H. C., & GREENE, B. G. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Proceedings of the IEEE, 11, 1665-1676.
19. RALSTON, J. V., PISONI, D. B., & MULLENNIX, J. W. (1995). Perception and comprehension of speech. In A. Syrdal, R. Bennett & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp.233-287). London, CRC Press.
20. RIJNSOEVER, P. A. Van (1988). A multilingual text-to-speech system. IPO annual progress report, Eindhoven (23).
21. SANDERMAN, A. A., & COLLIER, R. (1996). Acceptability of phrasing rules for synthetic speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 3390-3397.
22. SILVERMAN, K. E. A. (1987). The structure and processing of fundamental frequency contours. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge University.
23. SILVERMAN, K., BASSON, S., & LEVAS, S. (1990). Evaluating synthesizer performance: Is segmental intelligibility enough? Proceedings of the 1990 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing vol.2 (ICSLP) (pp.981-984).
24. TERKEN, J. M. B. (1993). Synthesizing natural sounding intonation for Dutch: Rules and perceptual evaluation. Computer Speech and Language, 7, 27-48.
25. TERKEN, J. M. B., & LEMEER, G. (1988). Effects of segmental quality and intonation on quality judgments for texts and utterances. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 453-457.
26. TERKEN, J. M. B., & NOOTEBOOM, S. G. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for "given" and "new" information. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 145-163.
27. WALES, R., & TONER, H. (1979). Intonation and ambiguity. In W. E. Cooper and E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp.135-158). Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.