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

This paper presents a variety of outcomes data from 24 experienced users of automatic speech recognition (ASR) as a means of computer access. To assess usage and satisfaction, we conducted an in-person survey interview. For those participants who had a choice of computer input methods, 48% reported using ASR for 25% or less of their computer tasks, while 37% used ASR for more than half of their computer tasks. Users' overall satisfaction with ASR was somewhat above neutral (averaging 63 out of 100), and the most important role for ASR was as a means of reducing upper-limb pain and fatigue. To measure user performance, we asked users to perform a series of word processing and operating system tasks with their ASR systems. For 18 of these users, performance without speech was also measured. The time for nontext tasks was significantly slower with speech (p < 0.05). The average rate for entering text was no different with or without speech. Text entry rate with speech varied widely, from 3 to 32 words per minute, as did recognition accuracy, from 72% to 94%. Users who had the best performance tended to be those who employed the best correction strategies while using ASR.

[1]  Cynthia Tam,et al.  Effectiveness of using discrete utterance speech recognition software , 2002 .

[2]  Robert Derosier,et al.  Speech recognition software as an assistive device: a pilot study of user satisfaction and psychosocial impact. , 2005, Work.

[3]  J R Dalton,et al.  The use of voice recognition as a control interface for word processing. , 1997, Occupational therapy in health care.

[4]  Daniel B. Horn,et al.  Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition systems , 1999, CHI '99.

[5]  H H Koester,et al.  User Performance With Speech Recognition: A Literature Review , 2001, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[6]  R Weiss-Lambrou,et al.  Item Analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) , 2000, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[7]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  The Beauty of Errors: Patterns of Error Correction in Desktop Speech Systems , 1999, INTERACT.

[8]  Arthur C. Curtis,et al.  Technology Evaluation: Comparative Evaluation of Three Continuous Speech Recognition Software Packages in the Generation of Medical Reports , 2000, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[9]  J. Rieger,et al.  The effect of automatic speech recognition systems on speaking workload and task efficiency , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[10]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  Overcoming unusability: developing efficient strategies in speech recognition systems , 2000, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[11]  Tanya Goette,et al.  Factors leading to the successful use of voice recognition technology , 1998, Assets '98.