On the intelligibility of fast synthesized speech for individuals with early-onset blindness

ASSETS'11: Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 211-218

  Stent, Amanda ^a   Syrdal, Ann ^a   Mishra, Taniya ^a  

^a AT AND T LABS RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

text to speech

Indexed keywords

PILOT EXPERIMENT; PRIMARY OUTPUTS; SPEAKING RATE; SYNTHESIZED SPEECH; TEXT TO SPEECH; TEXT-TO-SPEECH SYSTEM; UNIT SELECTION; VISUAL DISABILITY;

EYE PROTECTION; HANDICAPPED PERSONS; SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

EID: 81855180910     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2049536.2049574     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Apache commons codec. http://commons.apache.org/codec/apidocs/overview- summary.html.
2. C. Asawka, H. Takagi, S. Ino, and T. Ifukube. Maximum listening speeds for the blind. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display, 2003.
3. M. Beutnagel et al. The AT&T next-gen TTS system. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the ASA, EAA and DAGA, 1999.
4. H. T. Bunell and J. Lilley. Analysis methods for assessing TTS intelligibility. Presented at the 6th ISCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, 2007.
5. S. Chapman. Simmetrics. http://sta.www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/S.Chapman/ simmetrics.html.
6. eSpeak. http://espeak.sourceforge.net/.
7. F. Gougoux et al. Neuropsychology: Pitch discrimination in the early blind. Nature, 430, 2004.
8. W. Hallahan. DECtalk software: Text-to-speech technology and implementation. Digital Technical Journal, 7(4), 1995.
9. S. Hertz, R. Younes, and N. Zinovieva. Language-universal and language-specific components in the multi-language ETI-Eloquence text-to-speech system. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1999.
10. IVONA. http://www.ivona.com/.
11. E. Janse. Word perception in fast speech: artificially time-compressed vs. naturally produced fast speech. Speech Communication, 42:155-173, 2004.
12. E. Janse, M. van der Wer., and H. Quené. Listening to fast speech: aging and sentence context. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2007.
13. D. Klatt and L. Klatt. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87(2):820-857, 1990. (Pubitemid 20129722)
14. J. Lebeter and S. Saunders. The effects of time compression on the comprehension of natural and synthetic speech. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 20:63-81, 2010.
15. D. Moers, P. Wagner, B. Möbius, F. Müllers, and I. Jauk. Integrating a fast speech corpus in unit selection synthesis: experiments on perception, segmentation, and duration prediction. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 2010.
16. A. Moos and J. Trouvain. Comprehension of ultra-fast speech - blind vs. "normally hearing" persons. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2007.
17. T. Nishimoto et al. Effect of learning on listening to ultra-fast synthesized speech. In Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference, 2006.
18. K. Papadopoulos, E. Katemidou, A. Koutsoklenis, and E. Mouratidou. Differences among sighted individuals and individuals with visual impairments in word intelligibility presented via synthetic and natural speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26(4):278-288, 2010.
19. L. Phillips. The double metaphone search algorithm. C/C++ Users Journal, 18(6):38-43, June 2000.
20. B. Sutton, J. King, K. Hux, and D. Beukelman. Younger and older adults' rate performance when listening to synthetic speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11(3):147-153, 1995.
21. K. Tokuda, T. Yoshimura, T. Masuko, T. Kobayashi, and T. Kitamura. Speech parameter generation algorithms for hmm-based speech synthesis. In Proceedings of ICASSP, 2000.