Reaction times of normal listeners to laryngeal, alaryngeal, and synthetic speech

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1380-1390

  Evitts, Paul M ^a   Searl, Jeff ^a  

^a BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alaryngeal; Cognitive processing; Laryngectomy; Reaction time; Speech intelligibility; Synthetic speech

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; ESOPHAGUS SPEECH; FEMALE; HUMAN; LARYNGECTOMY; LARYNX PROSTHESIS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LARYNGECTOMY; LARYNX, ARTIFICIAL; MALE; REACTION TIME; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH, ALARYNGEAL;

EID: 33847752663     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/099)     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. AVAAZ Innovations Inc. (1999). EcoS/Win: Experiment Generator and Controller for Windows [Computer software]. London, Ontario, Canada: Author.
2. Belin, P., & Zatorre, R. J. (2000). "What", "where", and "how" in auditory cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 905-909.
3. Blood, G. W. (1984). Fundamental frequency and intensity measurements in laryngeal and alaryngeal speakers. Journal of Communication Disorders, 17, 319-324.
4. Bradlow, A., Torretta, G. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1996). Intelligibility of normal speech. I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication, 20, 255-272.
5. Carpenter, M. A. (1999). Treatment decisions in alaryngeal speech. In S. Salmon (Ed.), Alaryngeal speech rehabilitation: For clinicians by clinicians (2nd ed., pp. 55-78). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
6. Casper, J. C., & Colton, R. H. (1993). Clinical manual for laryngectomy and head/neck cancer rehabilitation. San Diego, CA: Singular.
7. Chase, W., & Posner, M. (1965, May). The effect of auditory and visual confusability on visual and memory search tasks. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
8. Clark, J. G. (1985). Alaryngeal speech intelligibility and the older listener. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 60-65.
9. Clark, J. G., & Stemple, J. C. (1982). Assessment of three modes of alaryngeal speech with a synthetic sentence identification task in varying message to competition ratios. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 322-333.
10. Doyle, P. C., & Danhauer, J. (1986). Consonant intelligibility of alaryngeal talkers: Pilot data. Human Communication Canada, 10, 21-28.
11. Doyle, P. C., Danhauer, J., & Reed, C. (1988). Listeners' perceptions of consonants produced by esophageal and tracheosophageal talkers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 400-407.
12. Doyle, P. C., Swift, E. R., & Haaf, R. G. (1989). Effects of listener sophistication of tracheosophageal talker intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 22, 105-113.
13. Duffy, J., & Pisoni, D. (1992). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35, 351-389.
14. Dworkin, J. P., Meleca, R. J., Zormeier, M. M., Simpson, M. L., Garfield, I., Jacobs, J. R., & Mathog, R. H. (1998). Videostroboscopy of the pharyngoesophageal segment in total laryngectomees. Laryngoscope, 108, 1773-1781.
15. Evitts, P. M., Gabel, R., & Searl, J. P. (2003, November). Psychosocial analysis of listeners' perceptions of alaryngeal speech. Poster session presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago.
16. Fayer, J. M., & Krasinski, E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility and irritation. Language Learning, 37, 313-326.
17. Gates, G. A., Ryan, W., Cantu, E., & Hearne, E. (1982). Current status of laryngectomee rehabilitation: II. Causes of failure. American Journal of Otolaryngology, 3(1), 8-14.
18. Green, G., & Hults, M. (1982). Preferences for three types of alaryngeal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 141-145.
19. 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, 497-510.
20. Hyman, M. (1955). An experimental study of artificial-larynx and esophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 20, 291-299.
21. Kalb, M. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (1981). Individual speaker influence on relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 77-80.
22. 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.
23. Kent, R. D., & Read, C. (1992). The acoustic analysis of speech. San Diego, CA: Singular.
24. Kent, R. D., Weismer, G., Kent, J. F., & Rosenbek, J. C. (1989). Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 482-499.
25. Klasner, E., Yorkston, K., & Olswang, L. (2003, November). Dysarthric speech: How do listeners make sense of it? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago.
26. Knox, A. W., & Anneberg, M. (1973). The effects of training in comprehension of electrolaryngeal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 6, 110-120.
27. Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S. M., Caviness, J. N., & Adler, C. (2002). The effects of familiarization on intelligibility and lexical segmentation in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 3022-3030.
28. Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S. M., Caviness, J. N., Adler, C., & Edwards, B. (1998). Syllabic strength and lexical boundary decisions in the perception of hypokinetic dysarthric speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 2457-2466.
29. Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S. M., Caviness, J. N., Adler, C., & Edwards, B. (2000). Lexical boundary error analysis in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 3415-3424.
30. Luks, T. L., Nusbaum, H., & Levy, J. (1998). Hemispheric involvement in the perception of syntactic prosody is dynamically dependent on task demands. Brain and Language, 65, 313-332.
31. Manous, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Effects of signal duration on the perception of natural and SS. Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10. Bloomington: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
32. Mazoyer, B. M., Tzourio, N., Frak, V., Syrota, A., Murayama, N., Levrier, O., et al. (1993). The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 467-479.
33. McCroskey, R. L., & Mulligan, M. (1963). The relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial-larynx speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 37-41.
34. 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.
35. Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120-128.
36. Most, T., Tobin, Y., & Mimran, R. C. (2000). Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of esophageal and tracheosophageal speech production. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 165-180.
37. Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38, 289-306.
38. Ng, M. L., Gilbert, H. R., & Lerman, J. W. (2001). Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel duration characteristics related to perception of Cantonese alaryngeal speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 53, 36-47.
39. Nieboer, G., De Graaf, T., & Schutte, H. (1988). Esophageal voice quality judgments by means of the semantic differential. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 417-436.
40. Nusbaum, H. C., Schwab, E. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Subjective evaluation of SS: Measuring preference, naturalness, and acceptability. Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10. Bloomington: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
41. Nusbaum, H. C., Francis, A. L., & Henly, A. S. (1995). Measuring the naturalness of SS. International Journal of Speech Technology, 1, 7-19.
42. Pisoni, D. B. (1981). Perceptual evaluation of voice response systems: Intelligibility, recognition, and understanding. Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No.7. Bloomington: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
43. Reynolds, M. E., & Fucci, D. (1998). SS comprehension: A comparison of children with normal and impaired language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 458-466.
44. Reynolds, M. E., Isaacs-Duvall, C., & Haddox, M. L. (2002). A comparison of learning curves in natural and synthesized speech comprehension. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 802-810.
45. Reynolds, M. E., & Jefferson, L. (1999). Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: Comparison of children from two age groups. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 174-182.
46. Robbins, J., Fisher, H. B., Blom, E. C., & Singer, M. I. (1984). A comparative study of normal, esophageal, and tracheosophageal speech production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 202-210.
47. Schwartz, A., & Goldman, R. (1975). Another dimension for assessment of speech-sound discrimination: Latency of response. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 819-826.
48. Searl, J. P., Carpenter, M. A., & Banta, C. L. (2001). Intelligibility of stops and fricatives in tracheosophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 305-321.
49. Sheffert, S. M., Pisoni, D., Fellowes, J. M., & Remez, R. E. (2002). Learning to recognize talkers from natural, sinewave, and reversed speech samples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1447-1469.
50. Shipp, T. (1967). Frequency, duration, and perceptual measures in relation to judgments of alaryngeal speech acceptability. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 417-427.
51. Smith, L. F., & Calhoun, K. H. (1994). Intelligibility of tracheosophageal speech among naBve listeners. Southern Medical Journal, 87, 333-335.
52. Smith, B. E., Weinberg, B., Feth, L. L., & Horii, Y. (1978). Vocal roughness and jitter characteristics of vowels produced by esophageal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 240-249.
53. Stevens, A. A. (2004). Dissociating the cortical basis of memory for voices, words, and tones. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 162-171.
54. van As, C. J. (2001). Tracheosophageal speech: A multidimensional assessment of voice quality. Nieuwegein, The Netherlands: Budde-Elinkwijk Grafische Producties.
55. van As, C. J., Hilgers, F. M., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., & Koopmans-van Beinum, F. J. (1998). Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheosophageal prosthetic voice. Journal of Voice, 12, 239-248.
56. Weiner, F. F., & Falk, M. I. (1972). Speech-sound discrimination skills as measured by reaction time for normal and articulatory defective speaking children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 595-600.
57. Williams, S., & Watson, J. (1987). Speaking proficiency variations according to method of alaryngeal voicing. Laryngoscope, 97, 737-739.
58. Yorkston, K. M., Strand, E. A., & Kennedy, M. R. (1996). Comprehensibility of dysarthric speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5(1), 55-66.
59. Zatorre, R. J., Evans, A. C., & Meyer, E. (1994). Neural mechanisms underlying melodic perception and memory for pitch. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 1908-1919.