Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 49-58

  Koul, Rajinder ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Intellectual disability; Language impairments; Speech generation devices; Synthetic speech

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; SPEECH ANALYSIS;

SYNTHETIC SPEECH;

SPEECH COMMUNICATION;

EID: 0037650192     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0743461031000073092     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Abbeduto, L., Furman, L. & Davies, B. (1989). Relation between the receptive language and mental age of persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 535-543.
2. Abbeduto, L. & Nuccio, J. B. (1991). Relation between receptive language and cognitive maturity in persons with intellectual disabilities. American Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 96, 143-149.
3. Abbeduto, L. & Rosenberg, S. (1992). Linguistic communication in persons with mental retardation. In S. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 331-359). Maryland: Paul H. Brookes.
4. Berry, B. P. (1972). Comprehension of possessive and present continuous sentences by nonretarded, mildly retarded, and severely retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 540-544.
5. Beukelman, D. R. & Mirenda, P. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
6. Church, G. & Glennen, S. (1992). The handbook of assistive technology. San Diego: Singular Publishing Co.
7. Dahle, A. & Goldman, R. (1990, November). Perception of synthetic speech by normal and developmentally disabled children. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Seattle.
8. Drager, K. D. R. & Reichle, J. E. (2001 a). Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 109-119.
9. Drager, K. D. R. & Reichle, J. E. (2001b). Effects of discourse context on the intelligibility of synthesized speech for young adult and older adult listeners: Applications for AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1052-1057.
10. 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.
11. Eloquent Technology, Inc. (2000). An introduction to text-to-speech systems. Retrieved December 15, 1999, from http://www.speechworks.com
12. Evans, J. L., Viele, K., Kass, R. E. & Tang, F. (2002). Grammatical morphology and perception of synthetic and natural speech in children with specific language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 494-504.
13. Fucci, D., Reynolds, M., Bettagere, R. & Gonzales, M. (1995). Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 113-117.
14. Greene, B. G., Manous, L. M. & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Perceptual evaluation of DECTalk: A final report on version 1.8 (Research on speech perception, Progress Rep. No. 10). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, Indiana University.
15. Greenspan, S. L., Nusbaum, H. C. & Pisoni, D. B. (1988). Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 421-433.
16. Haring, N. G., McCormick, L. & Haring, T. G. (Eds.). (1994). Exceptional children and youth (6th ed.). New York: Merrill.
17. Higginbotham, D. J. & Baird, E. (1995). Analysis of listeners' summaries of synthesized speech passages. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 101-112.
18. Higginbotham, D. J., Drazek, A. L., Kowarsky, K., Scally, C. A. & Segal, E. (1994). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech delivered at normal and slow presentation rates. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 10, 191-202.
19. Higginbotham, D. J., Scally, C. A., Lundy, D. C. & Kowarsky, K. (1995). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech across three augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) output methods. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 889-901.
20. Hoover, J., Reichle, J., Van Tasell, D. & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425-431.
21. House, A. S., Williams, M. H. & Kryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158-166.
22. Humes, L. E., Nelson, K. J. & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1180-1184.
23. Humes, L. E., Nelson, K. J., Pisoni, D. B. & Lively, S. E. (1993). Effects of age on serial recall of natural and synthetic speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 634-639.
24. Hustad, K. C., Kent, R. D. & Beukelman, D. R. (1998). DECtalk and MacinTalk speech synthesizers: Intelligibility differences for three listener groups. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 744-752.
25. Hutt, M. L. & Gibby, R. G. (1979). The mentally retarded child: Development training and education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
26. Kail, R. (1992). General slowing of information processing by persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 333-341.
27. Kangas, K.A. & Allen, G.D. (1990). Intelligibility of synthetic speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 751-755.
28. Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Towards a model for text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
29. Koul, R.K. & Alien, G.D. (1993). Segmental intelligibility and speech interference thresholds of high-quality synthetic speech in the presence of noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 790-798.
30. Koul, R. K. & Hanners, J. (1997). Word identification and sentence verification of two synthetic speech systems by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 99-107.
31. Lees, K. & Koul, R. K. (1999). Perceptual learning of synthetic speech by individuals with mental retardation. ASHA, 1, 126.
32. Lehiste, I. (1962). Acoustical characteristics of selected English consonants. University of Michigan Speech Research Laboratory Report, 9, 1-219.
33. Levelt, W. J. M. (1978). A survey of studies in sentence perception. In W. J. M. Levelt & G. B. Flores d' Arcais (Eds.), Studies in the perception of language. New York: Wiley.
34. 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.
35. Logan, J. S., Pisoni, D. B. & Greene, B. G. (1985). Measuring the segmental intelligibility of speech: Results from eight text-to-speech systems. In Research on speech perception progress report no. 11. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
36. Manous, L. M., Pisoni, D. B., Dedina, M. J. & Nusbaum, H.C. (1985). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using a sentence verification task. In Research on speech perception progress report #11 (pp. 33-58). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, Indiana University.
37. Massey, H. J. (1988). Language-impaired children's comprehension of synthesized speech. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 401-409.
38. McNaughton, D., Fallon, D., Tod, J., Weiner, F. & Neisworth, J. (1994). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 161-168.
39. Merrill, E. C. & Jackson, T. S. (1992). Sentence processing by adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual Disabilities, 97, 342-350.
40. Mirenda, P. & Beukelman, D. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 84-88.
41. Mirenda, P. & Beukelman, D. R. (1990). A comparison of intelligibility among natural speech and seven, speech synthesizers with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 61-68.
42. 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.
43. National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. (2001). About hearing. Retrieved October 24, 2001, from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health
44. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (1993). Cerebral Palsy-Hope through Research (NIH Publication No, 93-159). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45. Nusbaum, H. C., Dedina, J. J. & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Perceptual confusions of consonants in natural and synthetic CV syllables. Speech Research Laboratory Technical Note 84-02. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
46. Paris, C. R., Gilson, R. D., Thomas, M. H. & Silver, N. C. (1995). Effect of synthetic voice on intelligibility on speech comprehension. Human Factors, 37, 335-340.
47. Pearsons, K. S., Bennett, R. L. & Fidell, S. (1977). Speech levels in various noise environments (PB-270 053). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
48. Pisoni, D. B. (1987). Some measures of intelligibility and comprehension. In G. D. Alien, S. Hunnicutt & D. H. Klatt (Eds.), From text to speech: The MITalk system (pp. 151-171). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Pisoni, D. B. & Hunnicutt, S. (1980). Perceptual evaluation of MITalk: The MIT unrestricted text-to-speech system. IEEE International Conference Record on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 572-575). New York: IEEE.
50. Pisoni, D. B., Manous, L. M. & Dedina, M. J. (1986). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: Effects of predictability on sentence verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. In Research on speech perception progress report no.12 (pp. 19-39). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, Indiana University.
51. Raghavendra, P. & Allen, G. D. (1993). Comprehension of synthetic speech with three text-to-speech systems using a sentence verification paradigm. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 126-133.
52. Ralston, J. V., Pisoni, D. B. & Mullennix, J. W. (1989). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule. In Research on speech perception progress report no. 15 (pp. 77-132). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, Indiana University.
53. Ralston, J. V., Pisoni, D. B., Lively, S. E., Greene, B. G. & Mullennix, J. W. (1991). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: Word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening times. Human Factors, 33, 471-491.
54. 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.
55. Reynolds, M. E., Isaacs-Duvall, C., Sheward, B. & Rotter, M. (2000). Examination of the effects of listening practice on synthesized speech comprehension. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 250-259.
56. Robinson, R. O. (1973). The frequency of other handicaps in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 305-312.
57. Rosenberg, S. (1982). The language of the mentally retarded: Development, processes, and intervention, In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Handbook of applied psycholinguistics: Major thrusts of research and theory (pp. 329-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. 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, 12, 296-308.
59. Rupprecht, S., Beukelman, D. & Vrtiska, H. (1995). Comparative intelligibility of five synthesized voices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 244-248.
60. 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.
61. Schmidt-Nielsen, A. (1995). Intelligibility and acceptability testing for speech technology. In R.W. Bennett, A. K. Syrdal & S. L. Greenspan (Eds.), Behavioral aspects of speech technology: Theory and applications (pp. 41-63). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
62. Taylor, R. L., Sternberg, L. & Richards, S. B. (1995). Exceptional children: Integrating research and teaching (2nd ed.). San Diego: Singular.
63. Venkatagiri, H. S. (1994). Effects of sentence length and exposure on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 96-104.
64. Willis, L., Koul, R. & Paschall, D. (2000). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech by individuals with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 106-114.