Usage, performance, and satisfaction outcomes for experienced users of automatic speech recognition

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 739-754

  Koester, Heidi Horstmann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Communication aids for disabled; Computer access; Outcomes; Physical disability; Speech recognition; User performance

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; SPEECH COMMUNICATION; SURVEYS; TEXT PROCESSING;

AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION (ASR); COMPUTER INPUT METHODS; TEXT ENTRY RATE;

SPEECH RECOGNITION;

AUTOMATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; FATIGUE; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INTERVIEW; LIMB PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE;

EID: 8644242137     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2003.07.0106     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Koester HH. User performance with speech recognition: a literature review. Assist. Technol. 2001;13(2):116-30.
2. Schwartz P, Johnson J. The effectiveness of speech recognition technology. Proceedings of RESNA '99 Conference; 1999; Long Beach (CA). Washington (DC): RESNA Press; 1999. p. 77-79.
3. DeRosier R. Speech recognition software as an assistive device: a study of user satisfaction and psychosocial impact [M.S. Thesis]. Philadelphia (TX): Temple University; 2002.
4. Goette T. Factors leading to the successful use of voice recognition technology. Proceedings of the 3rd International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies; 1998; Marina del Rey (CA). New York: ACM Press; 1998. p. 189-96.
5. Devine EG, Gaehde SA, Curtis AC. Comparative evaluation of three continuous speech recognition software packages in the generation of medical reports. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:462-68.
6. Karat J, Horn DB, Halverson CA, Karat C. Overcoming unusability: Developing efficient strategies in speech recognition systems. Poster at Computer-Human Interaction 2000, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. The Hague, Netherlands; 2000 Apr 1-4.
7. Karat C, Halverson CA, Horn DB, Karat J. Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition systems. Proceedings of the CHI '99 Conference; 1999; Boston (MA). New York: ACM Press; 1999. p. 568-74.
8. Rieger JM. The effect of automatic speech recognition systems on speaking workload and task efficiency. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:224-35.
9. Halverson CA, Horn DB, Karat C, Karat J. The beauty of errors: Patterns of error correction in desktop speech systems. Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction, INTERACT '99. Burke (VA): IOS Press; 1999. p. 133-40.
10. Kotler A, Tam C. Effectiveness of using discrete utterance speech recognition software. Augmentative Altern Commun. 2002;18(3):137-46.
11. Dalton JR, Peterson CQ. The use of voice recognition as a control interface for word processing. Occup Ther Health Care. 1997;11:75-81.
12. Demers L, Lambrou RW, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12(2):96-105.
13. Olson J, Nilsen E. Analysis of the cognition involved in spreadsheet software interaction. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1988;5:221-65.
14. Koester HH. A method for measuring client performance with speech recognition. Proceedings of RESNA 2002 Conference; 2002; Minneapolis (MN). Washington (DC): RESNA Press; 2002. p. 115-17.