Effect of repeated listening experiences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech

References

• American National Standards Institute. (1977). Specifications for audiometers. ANSI S3.1-1977. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., Jones, R. S., & Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 243–248.
   Google Scholar
• Buzolich, M. J. (1983). Interaction analysis of augmented and normal adult communicators. Unpublished dissertation, Uni-versity of California, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Goodrich, G. L., Bennett, R. R., Paul, N. S., & Wiley, J. K. (1980). Preliminary report on evaluation of synthetic speech from reading machines. Visual Impairment and Blindness, 74, 273–275.
   Web of Science ®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
• Greenspan, S. L., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule: Effects of training and attentional limitations (Progress Report No. 11). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Department of Psychology.
   Google Scholar
• Helsel-Dewert, M., & van den Meiracker, M. (1987). The intelligi-bility of synthetic speech to learning handicapped children. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9,38–44.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huntress, L. M., Lee, L., Creaghead, N. A., Wheeler, D. D., & Braverman, K. M. (1990). Aphasic subjects' comprehension of synthetic and natural speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55,21–27.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Luxton, K. (1985). Synthetic vs. natural speech and comprehen-sion in blind and sighted adults. In A. W. Kraat (Ed.), Commu-nication interaction between aided and natural speakers (pp. 217–218). Toronto: Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, N. J. (1988). Language-impaired children's comprehen-sion of synthesized speech. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 395–400.
   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 intelli-gibility among natural speech and seven speech synthesizers with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alter-native Communication, 6,61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, P. R., & Atkins, C. P. (1988). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 84–88.
   Google Scholar
• Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behav-ior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 17, 235–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosegrant, T. (1988). Professional guide to the use of Talking TextWriter. New York: Scholastic Software.
   Google Scholar
• Rounsfell, S., Zucker, S. H., & Roberts, T. G. (1993). Effects of listener training on intelligibility of augmentative and alterna-v tive speech in the secondary classroom. Education and Train-ing in Mental Retardation, 28, 296–309.
   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
• Shell, D. F., Horn, C. A., & Severs, M. K. (1989). Computer-based compensatory augmentative communication technology for physically disabled, visually impaired, and speech impaired students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 29–43.
   Google Scholar
• Stecyk, P. E. (1988). Intelligibility of computer synthesized speech versus natural speech with closed versus open re-sponse alternatives. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach, CA.
   Google Scholar