Telephone Communication: Synthetic and Dysarthric Speech Intelligibility and Listener Preferences

References

• Beliveau, C., Hodge, M., & Hagler, P. (1995). Effect of supplemental linguistic cues on the intelligibility of severely dysarthric speakers. Augmentative and Alterna-tive Communication, 11, 176–186.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., Fager, S., Ullman, C., Hanson, E., & Logemann, J. (2002). The impact of speech supplementa-tion and clear speech on the intelligibility and speaking rate of people with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology, 10, 237–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borden, G., Harris, K., & Raphael, L. (2003). Speech Science Primer: Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception of Speech (4th edn.). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Crabtree, M., Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1990). Age and gender preferences for synthetic and natural speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 256–261.
   Google Scholar
• Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. S., & Brown, J. R. (1969). Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 246–269.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DePaul, R., & Kent, R. D. (2000). A longitudinal case study of ALS: Effects of listener familiarity and proficiency on intelligibility judgments. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 9, 230–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drager, K. D. R., & Reichle, J. E. (2001a). Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthe-sized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communica-tion, 17, 109–119.
   Google Scholar
• Drager, K. D. R., & Reichle, J. E. (2001b). Effects of discourse context on the intelligibility of synthesized speech for young adult and older adult listeners: Applications for AAC. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 44, 1052–1057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1992). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35, 351–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fucci, D., Reynolds, M. E., Bettagere, R., & Gonzales, M. D. (1995). Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 113–117.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, J., & Cannito, M. (1996). Influence of verbal and nonverbal contexts on the sentence intelligibility of a speaker with dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 750–760.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garcia, J. M., & Dagenais, P. A. (1998). Dysarthric sentence intelligibility: Contribution of iconic gestures and mes-sage predictiveness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1282–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover, J., Reichle, J., Van Tassell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425–431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., & Beukelman, D. R. (2001). Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion on intelligibility of severely dysarthric speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 407–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., & Beukelman, D. R. (2002). Listener comprehension of severely dysarthric speech: Effects of linguistic cues and stimulus cohesion. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 545–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., & Cahill, M. A. (2003). Effects of presentation mode and repeated familiarization on intelligibility of dysarthric speech. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 12, 198–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., & Garcia, J. M. (2002). The influences of alphabet supplementation, iconic gestures, & predictive messages on intelligibility of a speaker with cerebral palsy. The Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathol-ogy, 10, 279–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., Beukelman, D. R., & Yorkston, K. M. (1998). Functional outcome assessment in dysarthria. Seminars in Speech and Language, 19, 291–302.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., Jones, T., & Dailey, S. (2003). Implementing speech supplementation strategies: Effects on intelligibil-ity and speech rate of individuals with chronic severe dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 462–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., Kent, R. D., & Beukelman, D. R. (1998). DECTalk and MacinTalk speech synthesizers: Intellig-ibility differences for three listener groups. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 744–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, R. (1993). Speech intelligibility and communicative competence in children. In A. P. Kaiser & D. B. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing Children's Communication: Foundations for Intervention (Vol. 2, pp. 223–239). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Kent, R. D., & Read, C. D. (2002). Acoustic Analysis of Speech (2nd edn). Albany, NY: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kent, R., Weismer, G., Kent, J., & Rosenbek, J. (1989). Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 482–499.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koul, R. K., & Allen, G. D. (1993). Segmental intelligibility and speech interference thresholds of high-quality syn-thetic speech in presence of noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 790–798.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luce, P., Feustel, T., & Pisoni, D. (1983). Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors, 25(1), 17–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marics, M. A., & Williges, B. H. (1988). The intelligibility of synthesized speech in data inquiry systems. Human Factors, 30, 719–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Fallon, K., Tod, J., Weiner, F., & Neisworth, J. (1994). Effect of repeated listening experi-ences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Aug-mentative 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. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120–128.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1990). A comparison of intelligibility among natural speech and seven speech synthesizers with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, P., & Atkins, C. (1988). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(2), 84–88.
   Google Scholar
• Nakamura, K., Arima, M., Sadamoto, A., & Toyota, R. (1993). Telephoning with a voice output device: Listener reactions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 251–258.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., & Kleijn, W. B. (2001). Avoiding over-estimation in bandwidth extension of telephony speech. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2, 869–872.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Develop-ment of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech recognition thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oshrin, S. E., & Siders, J. A. (1987). The effect of word predictability on the intelligibility of computer synthe-sized speech. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 89–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, A., Coughlin, S., & Lehman, M. (2002). Factors influencing ratings of speech naturalness in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alter-native Communication, 18,11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Riley, J. K., & Fries, B. (2000, August). "Hello, hello" Synthetic versus natural speech over the telephone. Poster session presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Washington, DC.
   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
• Silverman, F. H., & Schauer, S. L. (1996). Why do so few persons who are severely speech impaired for reasons other than deafness use telecommunication relay services? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 59.
   Google Scholar
• Slowiaczek, L. M., & Nusbaum, H. C. (1985). Effects of speech rate and pitch contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 701–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjaden, K. K., & Liss, J. M. (1995). The role of listener familiarity in the perception of dysarthric speech. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 9, 139–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatagiri, H. S. (1994). Effect of sentence length and exposure on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 96–104.
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K., & Beukelman, D. (1980). A clinician-judged technique for quantifying dysarthric speech based on single-word intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 15–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1983). The influence of judge familiarization with the speaker on dysarthric speech intelligibility. In W. Berry (Ed.), Clinical Dysar-thria (pp. 155–164). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K., Beukelman, D., & Tice, R. (1996). Sentence Intelligibility Test for Macintosh. Lincoln: Communica-tion Disorders Software. Distributed by Tice Technology Services, Lincoln, NE.
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K., Strand, E., & Kennedy, M. (1996). Compre-hensibility of dysarthric speech: Implications for assess-ment and treatment planning. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 5, 55–66.
   Google Scholar