A comparison of learning curves in natural and synthesized speech comprehension.

This study examined the effect of listening practice on the ability of young adults to comprehend natural speech and DECtalk synthesized speech by having them perform a sentence verification task over a 5-day period. Results showed that response latencies of participants shortened in a similar fashion to sentences presented in both types of speech across the 5-day period, with latencies remaining significantly longer in response to DECtalk than to natural speech across the days. These results suggest that high-quality synthesized speech, such as DECtalk, can be useful in many human factors applications.

[1]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Speech Perception as a Talker-Contingent Process , 1993, Psychological science.

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

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

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

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

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

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

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

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

[11]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Audiology: The Fundamentals , 1990 .

[12]  Mary E. Reynolds,et al.  Examination of the effects of listening practice on synthesized speech comprehension , 2000 .

[13]  Cristina Delogu,et al.  Cognitive factors in the evaluation of synthetic speech , 1998, Speech Commun..

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

[15]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Effects of practice on speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech , 1982 .

[16]  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.

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

[18]  D M Jones,et al.  Synthesized or digitized? A guide to the use of computer speech. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[19]  M E Reynolds,et al.  Presentation Rate in Comprehension of Natural and Synthesized Speech , 2001, Perceptual and motor skills.

[20]  John E. Clark.  Intelligibility comparisons for two synthetic and one natural speech source , 1983 .

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

[22]  L E Humes,et al.  Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired elderly listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  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.

[24]  Richard D. Gilson,et al.  Effect of Synthetic Voice Intelligibility on Speech Comprehension , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[25]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Talker-specific learning in speech perception , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[27]  D.B. Pisoni,et al.  Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[28]  K. D. Kryter,et al.  ARTICULATION-TESTING METHODS: CONSONANTAL DIFFERENTIATION WITH A CLOSED-RESPONSE SET. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  John Greer Clark,et al.  Introduction to Audiology , 1975 .

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

[31]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics , 1996, Speech Commun..

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

[33]  Julie Scherz,et al.  Factors affecting the intelligibility of synthesized speech , 1995 .

[34]  Clinical Research in Communicative Disorders: Principles and Strategies , 1987 .

[35]  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.

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

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

[38]  Che Kan Leong,et al.  Program library for DECtalk text-to-speech system , 1989 .

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