Effects of training on the acoustic-phonetic representation of synthetic speech

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 50, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1445-1465

  Francis, Alexander L ^a   Nusbaum, Howard C ^b   Fenn, Kimberly ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Intelligibility; Listener training; Perceptual learning; Synthetic speech

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY SYSTEM; CONSONANT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MALE; MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING; PHONEME; PHONETICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TRAINING; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH, ALARYNGEAL; VOCABULARY;

EID: 36749062970     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/100)     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ansel, B. M., & Kent, R. D. (1992). Acoustic-phonetic contrasts and intelligibility in the dysarthria associated with mixed cerebral palsy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 296-308.
2. Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer.
3. Boothroyd, A. (1985). Evaluation of speech production of the hearing impaired: Some benefits of forced-choiced testing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 185-196.
4. Chaiklin, J. B. (1955). Native American listeners' adaptation in understanding speakers with foreign dialect. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 20, 165-170.
5. Cohen, H., & Segalowitz, N. (1990). Cerebral hemispheric involvement in the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Brain and Language, 38, 398-409.
6. Drager, K. D. R., & Reichle, J. E. (2001). Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 109-119.
7. 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.
8. Egan, J. P. (1948). Articulation testing methods. The Laryngoscope, 58, 955-991.
9. Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
10. Fenn, K. M., Nusbaum, H. C., & Margoliash, D. (2003, October 9). Consolidation during sleep of perceptual learning of spoken language. Nature, 425, 571-572.
11. Francis, A. L., Baldwin, K., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2000). Effects of training on attention to acoustic cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1668-1680.
12. Francis, A. L., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2002). Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 349-366.
13. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34, 65-89.
14. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
15. Goldstone, R. (1994). Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 178-200.
16. Goldstone, R. L. (1998). Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 585-612.
17. 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.
18. Guenther, F. H., Husain, F. T., Cohen, M. A., & Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (1999). Effects of categorization and discrimination training on auditory perceptual space. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2900-2912.
19. Huang, X., Acero, A., & Hon, H.-W. (2001). Spoken language processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Ing-Simmons, N. (1994). rsynth 2.0. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu /comp.speech/Section5/Synth/rsynth.html
23. Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 553-562.
24. Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K. (2000). Perceptual magnet and phoneme boundary effects in speech perception: Do they arise from a common mechanism? Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 874-886.
25. Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87, B47-B57.
26. Jakobson, R. C., Fant, G. M., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates (Tech. Rep. No. 13). Cambridge, MA: MIT Acoustics Laboratory.
27. 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.
28. Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971-995.
29. Klatt, D., & Klatt, L. (1990). Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 820-857.
30. Koul, R., & Hester, K. (2006). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition of synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 47-57.
31. Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-011). London: Sage.
32. Kuhl, P., & Iverson, P. (1995). Linguistic experience and the "perceptual magnet effect.".In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience (pp. 121-154). Baltimore: York Press.
33. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.
34. Liss, J. M., Spitzer, S. M., Caviness, J. N., & Adler, C. (2002). The effects of familiarization on intelligibility and lexical segmentation in hypokenetic and ataxic dysarthria. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 3022-3030.
35. Livingston, K. R., Andrews, J. K., & Harnad, S. (1998). Categorical perception effects induced by category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 732-753.
36. Luce, P. A., Feustel, T. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1983). Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural word lists. Human Factors, 83, 17-32.
37. Massaro, D. W., & Light, J. (2004). Using visible speech for training perception and production of speech for hard of hearing individuals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 304-320.
38. Mayo, C., Scobbie, J. M., Hewlett, N., & Waters, D. (2003). The influence of phonemic awareness development on acoustic cue weighting strategies in children's speech perception. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1184-1196.
39. McCandliss, B., Fiez, J. A., Protopapas, A., Conway, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[ l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 89-108.
40. McGarr, N. S. (1983). The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 451-458.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 477-488.
45. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.
46. 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.
47. Nusbaum, H. C., & Schwab, E. C. (1986). The role of attention and active processing in speech perception. In E. C. Schwab & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Vol. 1. Speech perception (pp. 113-157). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 593-608.
49. Pisoni, D. B., & Luce, P. A. (1987). Trading relations, acoustic cue integration, and context effects in speech perception. In M. E. H. Schouten (Ed.), The psychophysics of speech perception (pp. 155-172). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.
50. Quinn, P. C., Schyns, P. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The interplay between perceptual organization and categorization in the representation of complex visual patterns by young infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 117-127.
51. Rabbitt, P. (1991). Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockholm), 476(Suppl.), 167-176.
52. Repp, B. (1982). Phonetic trading relations and context effects: New experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 81-110.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means. Baltimore: Brookes.
56. Rousenfell, 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.
57. Samuel, A. G., & Newport, E. L. (1979). Adaptation of speech by nonspeech: Evidence for complex acoustic cue detectors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 546-578.
58. Schepis, M. M., & Reid, D. H. (1995). Effects of voice output communication aid on interactions between support personnel and an individual with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 73-77.
59. Schmidt-Nielsen, A. (1995). Intelligibility and acceptability testing for speech technology. In A. K. Syrdal, R.W. Bennett, & S. L. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 195-232). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
60. Schneider, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
61. 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.
62. Schyns, P. G. (1998). Diagnostic recognition: Task constraints, object information, and their interaction. Cognition, 67, 147-179.
63. Schyns, P. G., Goldstone, R. L., & Thibaut, J.-P. (1998). The development of features in object concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 1-54.
64. Schyns, P. G., & Oliva, A. (1997). Flexible, diagnosticity-driven, rather than fixed, perceptually determined scale selection in scene and face recognition. Perception, 26, 1027-1038.
65. Schyns, P. G., & Rodet, L. (1997). Categorization creates functional features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 682-696.
66. Shepard, R. N. (1972). Psychological representations of speech sounds. In E. E. David & P. B. Denes (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view (pp. 67-111). New York: McGraw-Hill.
67. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
68. Soli, S. D., & Arabie, P. (1979). Auditory vs. phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonant phonemes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 46-59.
69. Soli, S. D., Arabie, P., & Carroll, J. D. (1986). Discrete representation of perceptual structure underlying consonant confusions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 826-837.
70. Spitzer, S. M., Liss, J. M., Caviness, J. N., & Adler, C. (2000). An exploration of familiarization effects in the perception of hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthric speech. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 285-293.
71. Statsoft. (2003). Statistica [computer software]. Tulsa, OK: Author.
72. Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1872-1891.
73. Teoh, S. W., Neuburger, H. S., & Svirsky, M. A. (2003). Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 8, 269-285.
74. Tjaden, K. K., & Liss, J. M. (1995). Listener familiarity in the perception of dysarthric speech. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 9, 139-154.
75. Tjaden, K., Rivera, D., Wilding, G. E., & Turner, G. (2005). Characteristics of the lax vowel space in dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 554-566.
76. Tun, P. A., & Wingfield, A. (1994). Speech recall under heavy load conditions: Age, predictability, and limits on dual-task interference. Aging and Cognition, 1, 29-44.
77. Venkatagiri, H. S. (1994). Effects of sentence length and exposure on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 96-104.