User Evaluation of a Communication System That Automatically Generates Captions to Improve Telephone Communication

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 44-68

  Zekveld, Adriana A ^a   Kramer, Sophia E ^a   Kessens, Judith M ^b   Vlaming, Marcel S M G ^a   Houtgast, Tammo ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

assistive text display; automatic speech recognition; communication device for hearing impaired; user evaluation

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; LOW FREQUENCY NOISE; MALE; RATING SCALE; SIMULATION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELEPHONE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, MIXED CONDUCTIVE-SENSORINEURAL; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; QUESTIONNAIRES; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE; TELEPHONE; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 59149085302     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713808330207     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Altman, D.G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall.
2. Boothroyd, A. (2004). Hearing aid accessories for adults: The remote FM microphone. Ear and Hearing, 25, 22-33.
3. Bourke, P.A., Duncan, J., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1996). A general factor involved in dual task performance decrement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49, 525-545.
4. Deaton, J.E., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Sensory and cognitive vigilance: Effects of age on performance and subjective workload. Human Performance, 6, 71-79.
5. Duchateau, J., Van Uytsel, D.H., Van Hamme, H., & Wambacq, P. (2005, September). Statistical language models for large vocabulary spontaneous speech recognition in Dutch. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH-2005 (pp. 1301–1304), Lisbon, Portugal.
6. Fiscus, J., Garofolo, J., Lee, A., Martin, A., Pallett, M., Przybocki, M., et al. (2004, November). Results of the fall 2004 SST and MDE evaluation. DARPA Rich Transcription Workshop, Palisades, NY.
7. Fitzpatrick, R. (1991). Surveys of patient satisfaction: II- Designing a questionnaire and conducting a survey. British Medical Journal, 302, 1129-1132.
8. George, E.L.J., Zekveld, A.A., Kramer, S.E., Goverts, S.T., Festen, J.M., & Houtgast, T. (2007). Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 2362-2375.
9. Goronzy, S. (2002). Robust adaptation to non-native accents in automatic speech recognition (Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2560). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
10. Graham, R., & Carter, C. (2000). Comparison of speech input and manual control of in-car devices while on the move. Personal Technologies, 4, 155-164.
11. Hart, S.G., & Staveland, L.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
12. Hill, S.G., Iavecchia, H.P., Byers, J.C., Bittner, A.C., Zaklad, A.L., & Christ, R.E. (1992). Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Human Factors, 34, 429-439.
13. Jerger, J., Chmiel, R., Florin, E., Pirozzolo, F., & Wilson, N. (1996). Comparison of conventional amplification and an assistive listening device in elderly persons. Ear and Hearing, 17, 490-504.
14. Jobard, G., Vigneau, M., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2007). Impact of modality and linguistic complexity during reading and listening tasks. NeuroImage, 34, 784-800.
15. Karis, D., & Dobroth, K.M. (1995). Psychological and human factors issues in the design of speech recognition systems. In A. Syrdal, R. Bennett, & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 127–194). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
16. Karlsson, I., Faulkner, A., & Salvi, G. (2003, September). SYNFACE: A talking face telephone. In EUROSPEECH-2003 (pp. 1297–1300), Geneva, Switzerland.
17. Kepler, L.J., Terry, M., & Sweetman, R.H. (1992). Telephone usage in the hearing-impaired population. Ear and Hearing, 13, 311-319.
18. Kricos, P.B. (2006). Audiologic management of older adults with hearing loss and compromised cognitive/psychoacoustic auditory processing capabilities. Trends in Amplification, 10, 1-28.
19. Legatt, A.P., & Noyes, J.M. (2004). A holistic approach to the introduction of automatic speech recognition technology in ground combat vehicles. Military Psychology, 16, 81-97.
20. Leitch, D. (2008). GIFT Atlantic Liberated Learning High School Project (Final research report). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Saint Mary's University.
21. Leitch, D., & MacMillan, T. (2003). Innovative technology and inclusion: Current issues and future directions for Liberated Learning Research (Year IV research report on the Liberated Learning Initiative, Liberated Learning Project). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Saint Mary's University.
22. Levitt, H. (1994). Speech processing for physical and sensory disabilities. In D. B. Roe & J. G. Wilpon (Eds.), Voice communication between humans and machines (pp. 311–343). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23. Mayes, D.K., Sims, V.K., & Koonce, J.M. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 367-378.
24. Milchard, A.J., & Cullington, H.E. (2004). An investigation into the effect of limiting the frequency bandwidth of speech on speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users. International Journal of Audiology, 43, 356-362.
25. Möller, S. (2000). Assessment and prediction of speech quality in telecommunications. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
26. Moroney, W.F., Biers, D.W., & Eggemeier, F.T. (1995). Some measurement and methodological considerations in the application of subjective workload measurement techniques. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5, 87-106.
27. Moroney, W.F., Biers, D.W., Eggemeier, F.T., & Mitchell, J.A. (1992). Comparison of two scoring procedures with the NASA Task Load index in a simulated flight task. In Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE National Aerospace Electronics Conference (pp. 734–740). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
28. Murata, A. (1999). Identification of an acceptable mixture of key and speech inputs in bimodal interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 339-348.
29. Nusbaum, H.C., DeGroot, J., & Lee, L. (1995). Using speech recognition systems: Issues in cognitive engineering. In A. Syrdal, R. Bennett, & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 127–194). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
30. Nygren, T.E. (1991). Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: Implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Human Factors, 33, 17-33.
31. Owen, A.M., Downes, J.J., Sahakian, B.J., Polkey, C.E., & Robbins, T.W. (1990). Planning and spatial working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia, 28, 1021-1034.
32. Pichora-Fuller, M.K., Schneider, B.A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 593-608.
33. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A.M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
34. Saunders, G.H., Forsline, A., & Fausti S.A. (2004). Performance-perceptual test and its relationship to unaided reported handicap. Ear and Hearing, 25, 117-126.
35. Siciliano, C., Faulkner, A., & Williams, G. (2003). Lipreadability of a synthetic talking face in normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. In Proceedings of the Auditory-Visual Speech Processing Workshop (pp. 205–208), St Jorioz, France.
36. Southall, K., Gagné, J., & Leroux, T. (2006). Factors that influence the use of assistance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 252-259.
37. Stouten, F., Duchteau, J., Martens, J.-P., & Wambacq, P. (2006). Coping with disfluencies in spontaneous speech recognition: Acoustic detection and linguistic context manipulation. Speech Communication, 48, 1590-1606.
38. Svensson, E. (2001). Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 47-48.
39. Tomporowski, P.D. (2003). Performance and perceptions of workload among young and older adults: Effects of practice during cognitively demanding tasks. Educational Gerontology, 29, 447-466.
40. Van Boxtel, M.P.J., Van Beijsterveldt, C.E.M., Houx, P.J., Anteunis, L.C., Metsemakers, J.F.M., & Jolles, J. (2000). Mild hearing impairment can reduce verbal memory performance in a healthy adult population. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 147-154.
41. Vandierendonck, A., Kemps, E., Fastame, M.C., & Szmalec, A. (2004). Working memory components of the Corsi blocks task. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 57-79.
42. Versfeld, N.J., Daalder, L., Festen, J.M., & Houtgast, T. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1671-1684.
43. Wald, M. (2006). Captioning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People by Editing Automatic Speech Recognition in Real Time, Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs ICCHP 2006, LNCS 4061, pp. 683–690.
44. Wickens, C.D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance. New York: HarperCollins.
45. Yeh, Y.-Y., & Wickens, C.D. (1988). Dissociation of performance and subjective measures of workload. Human Factors, 30, 111-120.
46. Zekveld, A.A., George, E.L.J., Kramer, S.E., Goverts, S.T., & Houtgast, T. (2007). The development of the Text Reception Threshold test: A visual analogue of the Speech Reception Threshold test. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 576-584.
47. Zekveld, A.A., Kramer, S.E., Kessens, J.M., Vlaming, M.S.M.G., & Houtgast, T. (2008). The benefit obtained from visually displayed text from an automatic speech recognizer during listening to speech presented in noise. Ear and Hearing, 29, 838-852.
48. Zekveld, A.A., Kramer, S.E., Kessens, J.M., Vlaming, M.S.M.G., & Houtgast, T. (in press). The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognizer. Ear and Hearing.
49. Zhang, Y., & Luximon, A. (2005). Subjective mental workload measures. Ergonomia IJE&HF, 27, 199-206.