Synthesized speech intelligibility in sentences: A comparison of monolingual English-speaking and bilingual children

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 244-250

  Axmear, Ellen ^a   Reichte, Joe ^a,c   Alamsaputra, Maya ^a   Kohnert, Kathryn ^a   Drager, Kathryn ^b   Sellnow, Kelli ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c 115 Shevlin Hall ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication; Bilingual speakers; Children; Intelligibility; Synthesized speech

Indexed keywords

CHILD; COMMUNICATION AID; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; REVIEW; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MULTILINGUALISM; PHONETICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH PRODUCTION MEASUREMENT;

EID: 23744482072     PISSN: 01611461     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/024)     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Alamsaputra, D. (2004). Examining speech intelligibility of English and bilingual listeners. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
2. Clopper, C., Carter, A., Dillon, C., Harnsberger, J., Herman, R., Clarke, C., et al. (2000). A multi-talker multi-dialect corpus of spoken American English: An initial report on development (Research on Spoken Language Processing Progress Rep. No. 24). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Drager, K. D. R., & Reichle, J. E. (2001a). Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 109-119.
5. 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, 1052-1056.
6. 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.
7. Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1988). Perception of synthetic speech by adults and children. In L. E. Bernstein (Ed.), The vocally impaired: Clinical practice and research (pp. 206-248). Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
8. Harrison-Harris, O. (2002, November 5) AAC, literacy and bilingualism. ASHA Leader, 20.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Humes, L. E., Nelson, K. J., Pisoni, D. B., & Lively, S. E. (1991). Effects of age on serial recall of natural and synthetic speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 634-636.
12. Humes, L. E., Nelson, K. J., Pisoni, D. B., & Lively, S. E. (1993). Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1180-1185.
13. Kalikow, D., Stevens, K., & Elliott, L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using test material with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
14. 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(4), 751-755.
15. Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services, summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs.
16. Kohnert, K., Kennedy, M., Glaze, L., Kan, P., & Carney, E. (2003). Breadth and depth of diversity in Minnesota: Challenges to clinical competency. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 259-272.
17. Logan, J. S., Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by ten text-to-speech speech systems. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566-581.
18. Mack, M., Tierney, J., & Boyle, M. E. T. (1990). The intelligibility of natural and LPC-coded words and sentences of native and non-native speakers of English. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory Technical Report, p. 869.
19. Marics, M. A., & Williges, B. H. (1988). The intelligibility of synthesized speech in data inquiry systems. Human Factors, 30, 719-732.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Nelson, P., Soli, S., & Seitz, A. (2002). Acoustical barriers to learning. Melville, NY: Technical Committee on Speech Communication of the Acoustical Society of America.
23. Oshrin, S. E., & Siders, J. A. (1987). The effect of word predictability on the intelligibility of computer synthesized speech. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 89-90.
24. Reynolds, M. E., & Jefferson, M. (1999). Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: Comparison of children from two age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 154, 174-182.
25. Reynolds, M. ED., Bond, Z. S., & Fucci, D. (1996). Synthetic speech intelligibility: Comparison of native and non-native speakers of English. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12(1), 32.
26. Schlosser, R. W., Belfiore, P. J., Nigam, R., Blischak, D. M., & Hetzroni, O. (1996). The effects of speech output technology in the learning of graphic symbols. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 537-549.
27. Sevcik, R., & Romski, M. A. (2002). The role of language comprehension in establishing early augmented conversations. In J. Reichle, D. Beukelman, & J. Light (Eds.), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (pp. 453-474). Baltimore: Brookes.
28. Slowiaczek, L. M., & Nusbaum, H. D. (1985). Effects of speech rate and contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 701-712.
29. Street Electronics Corporation. (1982). User's manual, Echo synthesizer. Carpenteria, CA: Author.
30. Sutton, B., King, J., Hux, K., & Beukelman, D. (1995). Younger and older adults' rate performance when listening to synthetic speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11(3), 147.
31. United States Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. Venkatagiri, H. S. (1991). Effects of rate and pitch variations on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7(4), 284.