Examination of the effects of listening practice on synthesized speech comprehension

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 250-259

  Reynolds, Mary E ^a   Isaacs Duvall, Charlene ^a   Sheward, Bethany ^a   Rotter, Margaret ^a  

^a MARSHALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS; CONTEXT FREE LANGUAGES; SPEECH COMMUNICATION;

LISTENING PRACTICES; SPEECH COMPREHENSION;

SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

EID: 0034484399     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07434610012331279104     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bess, F., & Humes, L. E. (1995). Audiology: The fundamentals (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
2. Clark, J. E. (1983). Intelligibility comparisons for two synthetic and one natural speech source. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 37-49.
3. Duffy, S. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991 ). Effects of sentence context on the signal duration required to identify natural and synthetic words. In Research on speech perception progress report no. 17(pp. 341-354). Bioomington, IN: Indiana University.
4. Duffy, S. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1992). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35, 351-389.
5. Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice ana articulation drillbook (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
6. Fucci, D., Reynolds, M. E., Bettagere, R., & Gonzales, M. D. (1995). Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 113-117.
7. Greene, B. G., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Perception of synthetic speech produced automatically by rule: Intelligibility of eight text-to-speech systems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18,100-107.
8. Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1988). Perception of synthetic speech by adults and children: Research on processing voice output from text-to-speech systems. In L. E. Bernstein (Ed.), The vocally impaired: Clinical practice and research (pp. 206-248). Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
9. Greenspan, S. L, Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1988). Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 421-433.
10. Hegde, M. N. (1994). Clinical research in communicative disorders: Principles and strategies (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
11. Higginbotham, D. J., Drazek, A. L, Kowarsky, K., Scally, C., & Segal, E. (1994). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech delivered at normal and slow presentation rates. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10,191-202.
12. Hoover, J., Reichle, J., VanTasell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425-431.
13. House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H. L., & Cryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation-testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158-166.
14. Humes, L. E., Nelson, K. J., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34,1180-1184.
15. Jenkins, J. J., & Franklin, L. D. (1982). Recall of passages of synthetic speech. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 203-206.
16. Logan, J. S., Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566-581.
17. Luce, P. A., Feustel, T. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1983). Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors, 25,17-32.
18. Manous, L. M., Pisoni, D. B., Dedina, M. J., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1985). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using a sentence verification task. Research on speech perception progress report no. 11 (pp. 33-57). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
19. McNaughton, D., Fallon, K., Tod, J., Weiner, F., & Neisworth, J. (1994). Effect of repeated listening experiences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10,161-168.
20. Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3,120-128.
21. Mitchell, P. R., & Atkins, C. P. (1989). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5,84-88.
22. Moody, T., Joost, M., & Rodman, R. (1987). The effects of various types of speech output on listener comprehension rates. In H. J. Bullinger& B. Shackel (Eds.), Human-computer interactionINTERACT '87. North-Holland: Elsevier Science.
23. Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 235-242.
24. Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. H. (1974). The intelligibility of synthetic monosyllabic words in short, syntactically normal sentences. Haskins Laboratories: Status report on speech research SR-37/38 (pp. 169-190). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
25. Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker specific learning in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 355-376.
26. 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.
27. Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., & Greene, B. G. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Proceedings of the IEEE, 73, 1665-1676.
28. Pratt, R. L. (1987). Quantifying the performance of text-to-speech synthesizers. Speech Technology, 3, 54-64.
29. Reynolds, M. E., & Fucci, D. (1998). Synthetic speech comprehension: A comparison of children with normal and impaired language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41,458-466.
30. Reynolds, M. E., & Jefferson, L. (1999). Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: Comparison of children from two age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 174-182.
31. Rounsefell, S., Zucker, S. H., & Roberts, T. G. (1993). Effects of listener training on intelligibility of augmentative and alternative speech in the secondary classroom. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 296-308.
32. Scherz, J. W., & Beer, M. M. (1995). Factors affecting the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11,74-78.
33. Schwab, E. C., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 395-408.
34. Slowiaczek, L. M., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1985). Effects of speech rate and pitch contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 2,701-712.
35. Slowiaczek, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1981). Effects of practice on speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech. Research on speech perception progress report no. 7. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
36. Slowiaczek, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1982). Effects of practice on speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 95-96.