Differences among sighted individuals and individuals with visual impairments in word intelligibility presented via synthetic and natural speech

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 278-288

  Papadopoulos, Konstantinos ^a   Katemidou, Evangelia ^a   Koutsoklenis, Athanasios ^a   Mouratidou, Eirini ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MACEDONIA   (Greece)

Author keywords

Intelligibility; Synthetic speech; Text to speech; Visual impairments

Indexed keywords

CRITICAL FACTORS; INTELLIGIBILITY; KEY FACTORS; NATURAL SPEECH; SYNTHETIC SPEECH; TEXT TO SPEECH; TEXT-TO-SPEECH SYSTEM; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; WORD INTELLIGIBILITY;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMMUNICATION AID; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VISION DISORDERS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78649362757     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: 14773848     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2010.522200     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Argyropoulos, V., Papadopoulos, K., Kouroupetroglou, G. Xydas, G., & Katsoulis, P. (2007). Discrimination and perception of the acoustic rendition of texts by blind people. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4556, 205-213.
2. Beller, G., & Rodet, X. (2007). Content based transformation of the expressivity in speech. 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (2157-2160). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot GmbH.
3. Bess, F., & Humes, L. E. (1995). Audiology: The fundamentals (2nd edn). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
4. Campbell, N. (2008). Expressive/affective speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing (pp. 505-520). New York: Springer-Verlag.
5. Carlson, R., & Granstrom, B. (2008). Rule-based speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing (pp. 429-436). New York: Springer-Verlag.
6. Clark, J. E. (1983). Intelligibility comparisons for two synthetic and one natural speech source. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 37-49.
7. Doucet, M. E., Guillemot, J. P., Lassonde, M., Gagne, J. P., Leclerc, C., & Lepore, F. (2005). Blind subjects process auditory spectral cues more efficiently than sighted individuals. Experimental Brain Research, 160, 194-202.
8. 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.
9. Dutoit, T. (2008). Corpus-based speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing (pp 437-456.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Dutoit, T., Pagel, V., Pierret, N., Bataille, F., & van Der Vreken, O. (1996). The MBROLA Project: Towards a Set of High-Quality Speech Synthesizers Free of Use for Non-Commercial Purposes. International Conference of Spoken Language Processing '96. (1393-1396). Piscat-away, New Jersey: IEEE.
11. Fellbaum, K., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2008). Principles of electronic speech processing with applications for people with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 20, 55-85.
12. Francis, A. L., Nusbaum, H. C., & Fenn, K. (2007). Effects of training on the acoustic-phonetic representation of synthetic speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1445-1465.
13. Freitas, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2008). Speech technologies for blind and low vision persons. Technology and Disability, 20, 135-156.
14. 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.
15. Goudiras, D., Papadopoulos, K., Koutsoklenis, A., Papa-georgiou, V., & Stergiou, M. (2009). Factors affecting the reading media used by visually impaired adults. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 27, 111-127.
16. Grancharov, V., & Kleijn, W. (2008). Speech quality assesment. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing (pp 83-102.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
17. Greene, B. G., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Perception of synthetic speech produced automatically by rule: Intelligibility of eight text-to speech systems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 100-117.
18. Greene, B. G., Manous, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Perceptual evaluation of DECtalk: Final report on version 1.8. In Research on speech perception progress report No. 10. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology.
19. Hensil, J., & Whittaker S. G. (2000). Visual reading versus auditory reading by sighted persons and persons with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 762-770.
20. Hoover, J., Reichle, J., VanTasell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425-431.
21. Hugdahl, K., Ek, M., Rintee, T., Tuomainen, J., Haaral, C., & Hamalainen, K. (2004). Blind individuals show enhanced perceptual and attentional sensitivity for identification of speech sounds. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 28-32.
22. Hustad, K. C., Kent, R. D., & Beukelman, D. R. (1998). DECtalk and MacinTalk speech synthesizers: Intelligibility differences for three listeners groups. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 744-752.
23. 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.
24. Koul, R. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 49-58.
25. 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.
26. Koul, R. K., & Hanners, J. (1997). Word identification and sentence verification of two synthetic speech systems by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 99-107.
27. Koul, R., & Hester, K. (2006). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49, 47-57.
28. Logan, J. S., Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566-581.
29. Menard, L., Dupont, S., Baum, S.R., & Aubin, J. (2009). Production and perception of French vowels by congeni-tally blind adults and sighted adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 1406-1414.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Mitchell, P. R., & Atkins, C. P. (1989). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 84-88.
33. Moos, A., Hertrich, I., Dietrich, S., Trouvain, J., & Ackermann, H. (2008). Perception of Ultra-Fast Speech by a Blind Listener-Does he use his visual system? In R. Sock, S. Fuchs, & Y. Laprie (Ed.), 8th International Seminar on Speech Production. Strasbourg, France: INRIA.
34. Moos, A., & Trouvain, J. (2007). Comprehension of ultra-fast speech-Blind vs. "normally hearing" persons. In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (Ed.), 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (677-680). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot GmbH.
35. Papadopoulos, K., Argyropoulos, V., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2008). Discrimination, perception and comprehension of synthetic speech by students with visual impairment: The case of similar acoustic patterns. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 420-429.
36. Papadopoulos, K., & Koutsoklenis, A. (2009). Reading media used by higher-education students and graduates with visual impairments in Greece. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 772-779.
37. Papadopoulos, K., Koutsoklenis, A., Katemidou, E., & Okalidou, A. (2009). Perception of natural and synthetic speech by adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 403-414.
38. Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., & Greene, B. G. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 73 (pp. 1665-1676). doi:10.1109/PROC.1985. 13346.
39. Pratt, R. L. (1987). Quantifying the performance of text-to-speech synthesizers. Speech Technology, 3, 54-64.
40. Ralston, J. V., Pisoni, D. B., Lively, S. E., Greene, B. G., & Mullennix, J. W. (1991). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: Word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening times. Human Factors, 33, 471-491.
41. Ralston, J. V., Pisoni, D.B., & Mullennix, J.W. (1989). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule. In Research on speech perception progress report No. 15 (pp. 77-132). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, Indiana University.
42. Schroeter, J. (2008). Basic principles of speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi,& Y. Huang, (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing (pp. 413-428). New York: Springer-Verlag.
43. Spiliotopoulos, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2009). Spoken dialogue interfaces: Integrating usability. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5889, 484-499.
44. Stevens, C., Lees, N., Vonwiller, J., & Burnham, D. (2005). On-line experimental methods to evaluate text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis: Effects of voice gender and signal quality on intelligibility, naturalness and preference. Computer Speech and Language, 19, 129-146.
45. Trimmis, N., Papadeas, E., Papadas, T., Naxakis, S., Papathanasopoulos, P., & Goumas, P. (2006). Speech audiometry: Development of modern Greek word lists for suprathreshold Word-Recognition-Score (WRS) testing. The Mediterranean Journal of Otology, 2, 117-126.
46. Von Berg, S., Panorska, A., Uken, D., & Qeadan, F. (2009). DECtalk and VeriVox: Intelligibility, likeability, and rate preference differences for four listener groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 1-18.
47. Xydas, G., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2001a). The DEMOSTHeNES speech composer. In P. Taylor (Ed.), 4th ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Speech Synthesis (167-172). Perthshire, Scotland: International Speech Communication Association.
48. Xydas, G. & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2001b). Text-to-speech scripting interface for appropriate vocalisation of e-texts. In P. Dalsgaard, B. Lindberg, & H. Benner (Eds.), 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (2247-2250). Aalborg, Denmark: International Speech Communication Association.
49. 0 contours in short messaging applications. International Transactions on Speech Science and Engineering, 2, 109-120.
50. 0 selection for modelling focus prominence in small-footprint speech synthesis. Speech Communication, 48, 1057-1078.
51. Xydas, G., Spiliotopoulos, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2005). Modelling improved prosody generation from high-level linguistically annotated corpora. IEICE Transactions of Information and Systems, 3, 510-518.
52. Xydas, G., Zervas, P., Kouroupetroglou, G., Fakotakis, N., & Kokkinakis, G. (2005). Tree-based prediction of prosodic phrase breaks on top of shallow textual features. In N. Mamede (Ed), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, (3237-3240). Lisbon, Portugal: International Speech Communication Association.
53. Yuchtman, M., Nusbaum, H., & Pisoni, D. (1985). Consonant confusions and perceptual spaces for natural and synthetic speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78 (S1), 83.