Examination of the effects of listening practice on synthesized speech comprehension

References

• Bess, F., & Humes, L. E. (1995). Audiology: The fundamentals (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. E. (1983). Intelligibility comparisons for two synthetic and one natural speech source. Journal of Phonetics, / /, 37–49.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Effects of sentence context on the signal duration required to identify natural and synthetic words. In Research on speech perception progress report no. /7 (pp. 341–354). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1992). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpreta-tion. Language and Speech, 35,351–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice and articulation drillbook (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Fucci, D., Reynolds, M. E., Bettagere, R., & Gonzales, M. D. (1995). Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experi-mental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communica-tion, //, 113–117.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, B. G., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Perception of synthetic speech produced automatically by rule: Intelligibility of eight text-to-speech systems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 100–107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1988). Perception of synthetic speech by adults and children: Research on processing voice output from text-to-speech systems. In L. E. Bernstein (Ed.), The vocally impaired: Clinical practice and research (pp. 206–248). Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
   Google Scholar
• Greenspan, S. L., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1988). Per-ceptual learning of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, /4,421–433.
   Google Scholar
• Hegde, M. N. (1994). Clinical research in communicative disorders: Principles and strategies (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., Drazek, A. L., Kowarsky, K., Scally, C., & Segal, E. (1994). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech delivered at normal and slow presentation rates. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 191–202.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, J., Reichle, J., VanTasell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intel-ligibility of synthesized speech: Echo versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425–431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H. L., & Cryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation-testing methods: Consonantal differentia-tion with a closed response set. Journal of the Acoustical Soci-ety of America, 37,158–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes, L. E., Nelson, K. J., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1180–1184.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenkins, J. J., & Franklin, L. D. (1982). Recall of passages of syn-thetic speech. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 203–206.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, J. S., Greene, B. G., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, P. A., Feustel, T. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1983). Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors, 25,17–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manous, L. M., Pisoni, D. B., Dedina, M. J., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1985). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using a sentence verification task. Research on speech perception progress report no. 11 (pp. 33–57). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Fallon, K., Tod, J., Weiner, F., & Neisworth, J. (1994). Effect of repeated listening experiences on the intelligi-bility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 161–168.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Aug-mentative and Alternative Communication, 3,120–128.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, P. R., & Atkins, C. P. (1989). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Aug-mentative and Alternative Communication, 5,84–88.
   Google Scholar
• Moody, T., Joost, M., & Rodman, R. (1987). The effects of various types of speech output on listener comprehension rates. In H. J. Bullinger & B. Shackel (Eds.), Human-computer interaction-INTERACT '87. North-Holland: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Constraints on the per-ception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, /7,235–242.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. H. (1974). The intelligibility of syn-thetic monosyllabic words in short, syntactically normal sen-tences. Haskins Laboratories: Status report on speech research SR-37/38 (pp. 169–190). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker specific learning in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 355–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisoni, D. B., Manous, L. M., & Dedina, M. J. (1987). Comprehen-sion of natural and synthetic speech: Effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. Com-puter Speech and Language, 2, 303–320.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., & Greene, B. G. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Proceedings of the IEEE, 73,1665–1676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, R. L. (1987). Quantifying the performance of text-to-speech synthesizers. Speech Technology, 3,54–64.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, M. E., & Fucci, D. (1998). Synthetic speech compre-hension: A comparison of children with normal and impaired lan-guage skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 4/, 458–466.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, M. E., & Jefferson, L. (1999). Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: Comparison of children from two age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 174–182.
   Google Scholar
• Rounsefell, S., Zucker, S. H., & Roberts, T. G. (1993). Effects of listener training on intelligibility of augmentative and alternative speech in the secondary classroom. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 296–308.
   Google Scholar
• Scherz, J. W., & Beer, M. M. (1995). Factors affecting the intelli-gibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 74–78.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, E. C., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27,395–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slowiaczek, L. M., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1985). Effects of speech rate and pitch contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 2, 701–712.
   Google Scholar
• Slowiaczek, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1981). Effects of practice on speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech. Research on speech perception progress report no. 7. Bloom-ington, IN: Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Slowiaczek, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1982). Effects of practice on speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 7/, 95–96.
   Google Scholar