MOS and pair comparison combined methods for quality evaluation of text-to-speech systems

Acustica

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 650-656

  Salza, P L ^a   Foti, E ^a   Nebbia, L ^a   Oreglia, M ^a  

^a CSELT   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

DIPHONES; MEAN OPINION SCORE (MOS) METHOD; PAIR COMPARISON METHOD; SYNTHESIZERS; TEXT TO SPEECH SYSTEMS;

SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

EID: 0030182579     PISSN: 00017884     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Benoit, C., Emerard, F., Schnabel, B., and Tseva, A. (1991). Quality comparisons of prosodic and of acoustic components of various synthesisers. Eurospeech 91, volume 3, Genova, 875-878.
2. Benoit, C. and Pols, L. C. W. (1992). On the assessment of synthetic speech. Bailly, G., Benoit, C., and Sawallis, T. R., editors, Talking Machines, North-Holland Elseviers Sciences Publishers, Amsterdam, 435-441.
3. Cartier, M., Emerard, F., Pascal, D., Combescure, P., and Soubigou, A. (1992). Une méthode d'évaluation multicritère de sorties vocales. Application au test de 4 systèmes de synthèse à partir du texte. 19èmes Journées d'Etude sur la Parole, Société Française d'Acoustique et Association Belge des Acousticiens, Bruxelles.
4. CCITT (1989). Modulated noise reference unit (mnru). Recommendation P.81, Blue Book, V, Telephone Transmission Quality, Geneva.
5. CCITT (1993). Subjective performance assessment of the quality of speech of voice output devices. Draft Recommendation P.8S, Study Group XII, Special Rapporteur for Question 5/XII.
6. Delogu, C., Conte, S., Paoloni, A., and Semantina, C. (1992). Two different methodologies for evaluating the comprehension of synthetic passages. ICSLP '92, volume 2, Banff, 1231-1234.
7. Delogu, C., Paoloni, A., and Pocci, P. (1991). Applicazione della "magnitude estimation" come giudizio di "qualità" del segnale vocale sintetizzato. XIX Convegno Nazionale A.I.A. (Associazione Italiana di Acustica), Napoli, 389-394. (in italian).
8. Goldstein, M., Lindstrom, B., and Till, O. (1990). Assessing the performance of speech synthesizers: methodological impact of stimulus range and context for different evaluation procedures when assessing naturalness of Swedish synthesized sentences produced by four systems. ESPRIT SAM Document.
9. Goodman, D. J. and Nash, R. D. (1982). Subjective quality of the same speech transmission conditions in seven different countries. IEEE Trans. on Communication 30, 642-654.
10. Nye, P., Ingemann, F., and Donald, L. (1975). Synthetic speech comprehension: a comparison of listener performances with and preferences among different speech forms. Status Report on Speech Research SR-41, Haskins Laboratories.
11. Pavlovic, C. V., Rossi, M., and Espesser, R. (1990). Use of magnitude estimation technique for assessing the performance of text-to-speech synthesis systems. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 373-382.
12. Pols, L. C. W. (1992). Quality assessment of text-to-speech synthesis by rule. Furui, S. and Sondhi, M. M. e., editors, Advances in Speech Signal Processing, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York-Basel-Hong Kong, 387-416.
13. van Bezooijen, R. and Pols, L. C. W. (1990). Evaluating text-to-speech systems. Speech Comm. 9, 263-270.
14. Welkowitz, J., Ewen, R., and Cohen, J. (1982). Introductory Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego.