Text-to-speech accommodations for the reading challenges of adults with traumatic brain injury

Brain Injury

Volumn 29, Issue 7-8, 2015, Pages 888-897

  Harvey, Judy ^a   Hux, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain injury; Reading; Text to speech technology

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; READING; SPEECH; TEXT TO SPEECH; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY; WIDE RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST; AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION; BRAIN INJURIES; COMMUNICATION AID; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPLICATION; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; NEBRASKA; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; UTILIZATION;

ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BRAIN INJURIES; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEBRASKA; PRECISION MEDICINE; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE;

EID: 84937570400     PISSN: 02699052     EISSN: 1362301X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2015.1022878     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aldrich EM, Obrzut JE. Assisting students with a traumatic brain injury in school interventions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2012;27:291-301.
2. Nieman W, Ruff RM, Kramer JH. An attempt toward differentiating attentional deficits in traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology Review 1996;6:11-46.
3. Ylvisaker M, Todis B, Glang A, Urbanczyk B, Franklin C, DePompei R, Feeney T, Maxwell NM, Pearson S, Tyler JS. Educating students with TBI: Themes and recommendations. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 2001;16:76-93.
4. Chapman SB, Gamino JF, Cook LG, Hanten G, Li X, Levin HS. Impaired discourse gist and working memory in children after brain injury. Brain and Language 2006;97:178-188.
5. Cook LG, DePompei R, Chapman SB. Cognitive communicative challenges in TBI: Assessment and intervention in the long term. Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders 2011;21:33-42.
6. Gamino JF, Chapman SB, Cook LG. Strategic learning in youth with traumatic brain injury. Topics in Language Disorders 2009;29: 224-235.
7. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW. Neuropsychological assessment. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
8. Anderson-Inman L, Horney MA. Supported etext: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly 2007;42:155-160.
9. Abelson AG, Petersen M. Efficacy of ''talking books'' for a group of reading disabled boys. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1983;57: 567-570.
10. Balajthy E. TTS software for struggling readers. Reading Online 2005;8:1-9. Avaiable online at: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/balajthy2/, accessed 23 June 2014.
11. Hale AD, Skinner CH, Winn BD, Oliver R, Allin JD, Molloy CM. An investigation of listening and listening-while-reading accommodations on reading comprehension levels and rates in students with emotional disorders. Psychology in the Schools 2005;42: 39-51.
12. Lovett MW, Barron RW, Forbes JE, Cuksts B, Steinbach KA. Computer speech-based training of literacy skills in neurologically impaired children: A controlled evaluation. Brain and Language 1994;47:117-154.
13. Olson R, Foltz G, Wise B. Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 1986;18:93-99.
14. Rose TL, Sherry L. Relative effects of two previewing procedures on LD adolescents' oral reading performance. Learning Disability Quarterly 1984;7:39-44.
15. Elkind J, Black MS, Murray C. Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia 1996;46:159-186.
16. Hecker L, Burns L, Elkind J, Elkind K, Katz L. Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia 2002;52:243-272.
17. Montali J, Lewandowski I. Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1996;29:271-279.
18. Moorman A, Boon RR, Keller-Bell Y, Stagliano C, Jeffs T. Effects of text-to-speech software on the reading rate and comprehension skills of high school students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities 2010;16:41-49.
19. Schmitt AJ, McCallum E, Hale AD, Obeldobel E, Dingus K. Can text-to-speech assistive technology improve the reading comprehension of students with severe reading and emotional disabilities? Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools 2009; 10:95-119.
20. Higgins EL, Raskin MH. Speech recognition-based and automaticity programs to help students with severe reading and spelling problems. Annals of Dyslexia 2004;54:365-392.
21. Reitsma P. Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while-listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly 1988;23:219-235.
22. Leong CK. Effects of on-line reading and simultaneous DECtalk auding in helping below average and poor readers comprehend and summarize text. Learning Disability Quarterly 1995;18: 101-116.
23. Schmitt AJ, Hale AD, McCallum E, Mauck B. Accommodating remedial readers in the general education setting: Is listening-whilereading sufficient to improve factual and inferential comprehension? Psychology in the Schools 2010;48:37-45.
24. Harvey J, Hux K, Scott N, Snell J. Text-to-speech technology effects on reading rate and comprehension by adults with TBI. Brain Injury 2013;27:1388-1394.
25. Brown J, Fishco V, Hanna G. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Geneva, IL: Riverside Publishing Company; 1993.
26. Hiebert EH, Samuels SJ, Rasinski T. Comprehension-based silent reading rates: What do we know? What do we need to know? Literacy Research and Instruction 2012;51:110-124.
27. Freeland JT, Skinner CH, Jackson B, McDaniel CE, Smith S. Measuring and increasing silent reading comprehension rates: Empirically validating a repeated readings intervention. Psychology in the Schools 2000;37:415-429.
28. Asikainen I, Kaste M, Sarna S. Predicting late outcome for patients with traumatic brain injury referred to a rehabilitation programme: A study of 508 Finnish patients 5 years or more after injury. Brain Injury 1998;12:95-107.
29. Fortuny LA, Briggs M, Newcombe F, Ratcliff G, Thomas C. Measuring the duration of post-traumatic amnesia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1980;43:377-379.
30. Russel WR, Smith A. Post-traumatic amnesia in closed head injury. Archives of Neurology 1961;5:16-29.
31. Wilkinson GS. Wide Range Achievement Test-3 (WRAT-3). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.; 1993.
32. Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery-Revised. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp; 2007.
33. Northcutt E. GED complete preparation. Austin, TX: Steck-Vaughn; 1996.
34. Rockowitz M, Brownstein SC, Peters M, Wolf IK, Bolton JM, Feinstein R, Ramsey S, Gotlib L. Barron's how to prepare for the GED High School Equivalency Exam. 11th ed. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series; 2001.
35. Stewart MA. Peterson's master the GED 2011. Lawrenceville, NJ: Petersons.com/publishing; 2011.
36. Van Slyke C. Kaplan GED. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2005.
37. My Byline Media. (n.d.) Readability Formulas. Free readability consensus calculator. Available online at: http://www.readabilityformulas. com/free-readability-formula-tests.php, accessed 18 May 2012.
38. Tuiman J. Determining the passage dependency of comprehension test questions in five major tests. Reading Research Quarterly 1974; 2:206-223.
39. Dietz A, Hux K, McKelvey M, Beukelman D, Weissling K. Reading comprehension by people with chronic aphasia: A comparison of three levels of visuographic contextual support. Aphasiology 2009;23:1053-1064.
40. Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. Error analysis and passage dependency of test items from a standardized test of multiplesentence reading comprehension for aphasic and noon-braindamaged adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1987; 52:358-366.
41. Nicholas LE, MacLennon D, Brookshire RH. Validity of multiple sentence reading comprehension tests for aphasic adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1986;51:82-87.
42. Williams JR. Guidelines for the use of multimedia in instruction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting 1998;42:1447-1451.
43. Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1977.
44. Flemingham K, Baguley I, Green A. Effects of diffuse axonal injury on speed of information processing following severe traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology 2004;18:564-571.
45. Matthias J, Wheaton P. Changes in attention and informationprocessing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A metaanalytic review. Neuropsychology 2004;21:212-223.
46. Ponsford J, Kinsella G. Attentional deficits following closed-head injury. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology 1992;14: 822-838.
47. Rios M, Perianez JA, Munoz-Cespedes JM. Attentional control and slowness of information processing after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2004;18:257-272.
48. Westby C. Assessing and remediating text comprehension problems. In: Catts HW, Kamhi AG, editors. Language and reading disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2005. p 157-232.
49. Griffiths GG. Evaluation of a reading comprehension strategy package to improve reading comprehension of adult college students with acquired brain injuries [dissertation]. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon; 2013.
50. Manset-Williamson G, Dunn M, Hinshaw R, Nelson JM. The impact of self-questioning strategy use on the text-reader assisted comprehension of students with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education 2008;23:123-135.
51. Palinscar AS, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-Fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1984;1:117-175.
52. Sohlberg MM, Griffiths GG, Fickas S. An evaluation of reading comprehension of expository text in adults with traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2014;23:160-175.