Telephone communication: Synthetic and dysarthric speech intelligibility and listener preferences

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 103-112

  Drager, Kathryn D R ^a   Hustad, Katherine C ^a,b   Gable, Kerry L ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC); Dysarthric speech; Intelligibility; Synthesized speech; Telephone

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR NONVOCAL PERSONS; HUMAN ENGINEERING; SPEECH SYNTHESIS; TELEPHONE;

AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION; DYSARTHRIC SPEECH; SYNTHESIZED SPEECH; TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

EID: 2942653066     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07434610410001699681     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Beliveau, C., Hodge, M., & Hagler, P. (1995). Effect of supplemental linguistic cues on the intelligibility of severely dysarthric speakers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 176-186.
2. Beukelman, D., Fager, S., Ullman, C., Hanson, E., & Logemann, J. (2002). The impact of speech supplementation and clear speech on the intelligibility and speaking rate of people with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology, 10, 237-242.
3. Borden, G., Harris, K., & Raphael, L. (2003). Speech Science Primer: Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception of Speech (4th edn.). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
4. Crabtree, M., Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1990). Age and gender preferences for synthetic and natural speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 256-261.
5. Darley, F. L.; Aronson, A. S., & Brown, J. R. (1969). Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 246-269.
6. DePaul, R., & Kent, R. D. (2000). A longitudinal case study of ALS: Effects of listener familiarity and proficiency on intelligibility judgments. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 9, 230-240.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Garcia, J., & Cannito, M. (1996). Influence of verbal and nonverbal contexts on the sentence intelligibility of a speaker with dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 750-760.
12. Garcia, J. M., & Dagenais, P. A. (1998). Dysarthric sentence intelligibility: Contribution of iconic gestures and message predictiveness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1282-1293.
13. Hoover, J., Reichle, J., Van Tassell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Voltrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425-431.
14. Hustad, K. C., & Beukelman, D. R. (2001). Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion on intelligibility of severely dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 407-510.
15. Hustad, K. C. & Beukelman, D. R. (2002). Listener comprehension of severely dysarthric speech: Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 545-558.
16. Hustad, K. C., & Cahill, M. A. (2003). Effects of presentation mode and repeated familiarization on intelligibility of dysarthric speech. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 12, 198-208.
17. Hustad, K. C., & Garcia, J. M. (2002). The influences of alphabet supplementation, iconic gestures, & predictive messages on intelligibility of a speaker with cerebral palsy. The Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology, 10, 279-285.
18. Hustad, K. C., Beukelman, D. R., & Yorkston, K. M. (1998). Functional outcome assessment in dysarthria. Seminars in Speech and Language, 19, 291-302.
19. Hustad, K. C., Jones, T., & Dailey, S. (2003). Implementing speech supplementation strategies: Effects on intelligibility and speech rate of individuals with chronic severe dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 462-474.
20. 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.
21. Kent, R. (1993). Speech intelligibility and communicative competence in children. In A. P. Kaiser & D. B. Gray (Eds.) Enhancing Children's Communication: Foundations for Intervention (Vol. 2, pp. 223-239), Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
22. Kent, R. D., & Read, C. D. (2002). Acoustic Analysis of Speech (2nd edn). Albany, NY: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
23. Kent, R., Weismer, G., Kent, J., & Rosenbek, J. Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 482-499.
24. Koul, R. K., & Allen, G. D. (1993). Segmental intelligibility and speech interference thresholds of high-quality synthetic speech in presence of noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 790-798.
25. Luce, P., Feustel, T., & Pisoni, D. (1983). Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors, 25(1), 17-32.
26. Marics, M. A., & Williges, B. H. (1988). The intelligibility of synthesized speech in data inquiry systems. Human Factors, 30, 719-732.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Mitchell, P., & Atkins, C. (1988). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(2), 84-88.
31. Nakamura, K., Arima, M., Sadamoto, A., & Toyota, R. (1993). Telephoning with a voice output device: Listener reactions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 251-258.
32. Nilsson, M., & Kleijn, W. B. (2001). Avoiding overestimation in bandwidth extension of telephony speech. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2, 869-872.
33. Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech recognition thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
34. 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.
35. Ratcliff, A., Coughlin, S., & Lehman, M. (2002). Factors influencing ratings of speech naturalness in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 11-19.
36. Riley, J. K., & Fries, B. (2000, August). "Hello, hello!" Synthetic versus natural speech over the telephone. Poster session presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Washington, DC.
37. 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.
38. Silverman, F. H., & Schauer, S. L. (1996). Why do so few persons who are severely speech impaired for reasons other than deafness use telecommunication relay services? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 59.
39. Slowiaczek, L. M., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1985). Effects of speech rate and pitch contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 701-712.
40. Tjaden, K. K., & Liss, J. M. (1995). The role of listener familiarity in the perception of dysarthric speech. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 9, 139-154.
41. Venkatagiri, H. S. (1994). Effect of sentence length and exposure on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 96-104.
42. Yorkston, K., & Beukelman, D. (1980). A clinician-judged technique for quantifying dysarthric speech based on single-word intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 15-31.
43. Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1983). The influence of judge familiarization with the speaker on dysarthric speech intelligibility. In W. Berry (Ed.), Clinical Dysarthria (pp. 154-164). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
44. Yorkston, K., Beukelman, D., & Tice, R. (1996). Sentence Intelligibility Test for Macintosh. Lincoln: Communication Disorders Software. Distributed by Tice Technology Services, Lincoln, NE.
45. Yorkston, K., Strand, E., & Kennedy, M. (1996). Comprehensibility of dysarthric speech: Implications for assessment and treatment planning. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 5, 55-66.