Effect of repeated listening experiences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech

Two studies (one with child subjects, one with adult subjects) were conducted to investigate the effect of the following variables on the intelligibility of synthesized speech: synthesizer (DECtalk child's voice vs. Echo II+); repeated listening experiences (five sessions); and vocabulary type (novel vs. repeated). The pattern of findings was similar for the two studies: intelligibility scores were significantly higher for the DECtalk than for the Echo; repeated listening experiences resulted in significantly improved scores for both novel and repeated vocabulary; and, in sessions 2 to 5, repeated vocabulary was more intelligible than novel vocabulary. The results provide evidence that repeated listening experiences result in improved performance for both children and adults. Children and adults not only remember and recognize words that they have heard previously (repeated vocabulary), but repeated exposure to synthesized speech also improves performance on words heard for the first time (novel vocabulary).

[1]  A. Guilford,et al.  Standardization of the Boston Naming Test at the kindergarten and elementary school levels. , 1988 .

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

[3]  D. D. Wheeler,et al.  Aphasic subjects' comprehension of synthetic and natural speech. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

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

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

[6]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms , 1989 .

[7]  Marjorie Helsel-Dewert,et al.  The Intelligibility of Synthetic Speech to Learning Handicapped Children , 1987 .

[8]  T. Feustel,et al.  Capacity Demands in Short-Term Memory for Synthetic and .Natural Speech , 1983, Human factors.

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

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

[11]  Holly J. Massey.  Language-Impaired Children's Comprehension of Synthesized Speech , 1988 .

[12]  Duane F. Shell,et al.  Computer-Based Compensatory Augmentative Communications Technology for Physically Disabled, Visually Impaired, and Speech Impaired Students , 1989 .

[13]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule , 1985, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[14]  David B Pisoni,et al.  Perception of synthetic speech produced automatically by rule: Intelligibility of eight text-to-speech systems , 1986, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[15]  Gregory L. Goodrich,et al.  Preliminary Report on Evaluation of Synthetic Speech for Reading Machines , 1980 .

[16]  Suzanne Rounsefell.  Effects of Listener Training on Intelligibility of Augmentative and Alternative Speech in the Secondary Classroom. , 1993 .