Synthesized speech output and children: a scoping review.

PURPOSE Many computer-based augmentative and alternative communication systems in use by children have speech output. This article (a) provides a scoping review of the literature addressing the intelligibility and listener comprehension of synthesized speech output with children and (b) discusses future research directions. METHOD Studies investigating synthesized speech intelligibility and/or comprehension with children as listeners were systematically identified and coded according to their objectives and methodology. RESULTS Ten studies were identified. They were organized according to the following variables: intelligibility variables related to the stimuli (context and rate), intelligibility variables related to aspects of the listener (age of the child, the language or languages spoken by the listener, experience, and practice effects), and comprehension. Each of these factors-and the research support with child participants-was discussed. CONCLUSIONS Overall, there is a paucity of research investigating synthesized speech for use with children. Available evidence suggests that children produce similar trends but lower levels of intelligibility performance when compared with adults. Future areas of applied research are required to adequately define this relationship and the variables that may contribute to improving the intelligibility and comprehension of synthesized speech for children.

[1]  A. Panorska,et al.  DECtalk™ and VeriVox™: Intelligibility, Likeability, and Rate Preference Differences for Four Listener Groups , 2009, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[2]  K. Drager,et al.  Effects of discourse context on the intelligibility of synthesized speech for young adult and older adult listeners: applications for AAC. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  S. Soli,et al.  Acoustical Barriers to Learning: Children at Risk in Every Classroom. , 2000, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[4]  D H Klatt,et al.  Review of text-to-speech conversion for English. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Stephen Oshrin,et al.  The effect of world predictability on the intelligibility of computer synthesized speech , 1987 .

[6]  Robbie Case,et al.  Intellectual development : birth to adulthood , 1985 .

[7]  F. N. Dempster,et al.  Memory Span: Sources of Individual and Developmental Differences , 1981 .

[8]  L. Verhoeven,et al.  Effects of lengthening the speech signal on auditory word discrimination in kindergartners with SLI. , 2005, Journal of communication disorders.

[9]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  Age and gender preferences for synthetic and natural speech , 1990 .

[10]  Donald Fucci,et al.  Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions , 1995 .

[11]  K. Drager,et al.  Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthesized speech , 2001 .

[12]  Beth G. Greene.  Perception of synthetic speech by children , 1983 .

[13]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups , 1987 .

[14]  E C Schwab,et al.  Some Effects of Training on the Perception of Synthetic Speech , 1985, Human factors.

[15]  H. S. Venkatagiri,et al.  Effect of sentence length and exposure on the intelligibility of synthesized speech , 1994 .

[16]  Elizabeth Hayes,et al.  Speech synthesis in background noise: Effects of message formulation and visual information on the intelligibility of American English DECTalk™ , 2007, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[17]  Rhea Paul,et al.  The Clinical Assessment of Language Comprehension. , 1995 .

[18]  N Moray,et al.  Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[19]  David McNaughton,et al.  Effect of repeated listening experiences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech , 1994 .

[20]  Kathryn Drager,et al.  Synthesized speech intelligibility in sentences: a comparison of monolingual English-speaking and bilingual children. , 2005, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[21]  S. Keith Adams,et al.  Maximum voluntary hand grip torque for circular electrical connectors , 1988 .

[22]  R. Schlosser,et al.  The effects of speech output technology in the learning of graphic symbols. , 1995, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[23]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  S. Greenspan,et al.  Perceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. , 1987, Computer speech & language.

[26]  G D Allen,et al.  Segmental intelligibility and speech interference thresholds of high-quality synthetic speech in presence of noise. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[27]  R. Koul,et al.  Effects of repeated listening experiences on the perception of synthetic speech by individuals with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities , 2006, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[28]  B. H. Williges,et al.  The intelligibility of synthesized speech in data inquiry systems. , 1988, Human factors.

[29]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  A comparison of intelligibility among natural speech and seven speech synthesizers with listeners from three age groups , 1990 .

[30]  P. Dowden.  Augmentative and alternative communication decision making for children with severely unintelligible speech , 1997 .

[31]  Kathryn D R Drager,et al.  Accuracy of repetition of digitized and synthesized speech for young children in background noise. , 2006, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[32]  Kathryn M. Yorkston,et al.  Comprehensibility of Dysarthric Speech , 1996 .

[33]  Rajinder Koul,et al.  Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition of synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[34]  R. Schlosser,et al.  Roles of Speech Output in Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Narrative Review , 2003, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[35]  D R Beukelman,et al.  Synthetic and natural speech preferences of male and female listeners in four age groups. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[36]  H C Nusbaum,et al.  Effects of Speech Rate and Pitch Contour on the Perception of Synthetic Speech , 1985, Human factors.

[37]  Erna Alant,et al.  Attitudes of children toward an unfamiliar peer using an AAC device with and without voice output , 2002 .

[38]  J Reichle,et al.  The intelligibility of synthesized speech: ECHO II versus VOTRAX. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[39]  D. Jeffery Higginbotham,et al.  Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech delivered at normal and slow presentation rates , 1994 .

[40]  Donald Fucci,et al.  Synthetic speech comprehension: a comparison of children with normal and impaired language skills. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[41]  R. Koul,et al.  Word identification and sentence verification of two synthetic speech systems by individuals with intellectual disabilities , 1997 .

[42]  Donald Fucci,et al.  Synthetic Speech Intelligibility: Comparison of Native and Non-native Speakers of English , 1996 .

[43]  D J Higginbotham,et al.  Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech across three augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) output methods. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[44]  S A Duffy,et al.  Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: A Review and Theoretical Interpretation , 1992, Language and speech.

[45]  H. Arksey,et al.  Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , 2005 .

[46]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Children’s Responses to Computer-Synthesized Speech in Educational Media: Gender Consistency and Gender Similarity Effects , 2007 .

[47]  K. Hustad,et al.  Aided and unaided speech supplementation strategies: effect of alphabet cues and iconic hand gestures on dysarthric speech. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[48]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  Research report: Research Priorities in Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 1995 .

[49]  B. Lindblom.  On the communication process: Speaker-listener interaction and the development of speech* , 1990 .

[50]  D B Pisoni,et al.  Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: Word Monitoring and Sentence-by-Sentence Listening Times , 1991, Human factors.

[51]  Rhonda Carlson,et al.  Improving Intelligibility of Speakers with Profound Dysarthria and Cerebral Palsy , 2003 .

[52]  Mary E. Reynolds,et al.  Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: comparison of children from two age groups , 1999 .

[53]  Pamela Mitchell,et al.  A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids , 1989 .

[54]  H. S. Venkatagiri.  Effects of rate and pitch variations on the intelligibility of synthesized speech , 1991 .