References
- Greene, B. G., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Perception of synthetic speech produced by rule: Intelligibility of eight text to speech systems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 18 (2), 100–107.
- Hoover, J., Reichle, J., Van Tasell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425–431.
- House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H. L., & Kryter, K. (1965). Articulation testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed-response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158–166.
- Kraat, A., & Levinson, E. (1984). Intelligibility of two speech synthe-sizers used in augmentative communication devices for the se-verely speech impaired. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Bos-ton.
- Logan, J. S., Pisoni, D. B., & Greene, B. G. (1985). Measuring the segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech: Results from eight text to speech systems. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 11, Indiana University, Bloomington.
- 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.
- Nusbaum, H. C. & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 17, 235–242.
- Schwab, E. C., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1983). Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 9, Indiana University, Bloomington.