Differences Among Sighted Individuals and Individuals with Visual Impairments in Word Intelligibility Presented via Synthetic and Natural Speech

References

• Argyropoulos, V., Papadopoulos, K., Kouroupetroglou, G. Xydas, G., & Katsoulis, P. (2007). Discrimination and perception of the acoustic rendition of texts by blind people. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4556, 205–213.
   Google Scholar
• Beller, G., & Rodet, X. (2007). Content based transformation of the expressivity in speech. 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. (2157–2160). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Bess, F., & Humes, L. E. (1995). Audiology: The fundamentals (2nd edn)Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, N. (2008). Expressive/affective speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing. (pp. 505–520). New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, R., & Granström, B. (2008). Rule-based speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing. (pp. 429–436). New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. E. (1983). Intelligibility comparisons for two synthetic and one natural speech source. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 37–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doucet, M. E., Guillemot, J. P., Lassonde, M., Gagné, J. P., Leclerc, C., & Lepore, F. (2005). Blind subjects process auditory spectral cues more efficiently than sighted individuals. Experimental Brain Research, 160, 194–202.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Dutoit, T. (2008). Corpus-based speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing. (pp 437–456.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Dutoit, T., Pagel, V., Pierret, N., Bataille, F., & van Der Vreken, O. (1996). The MBROLA Project: Towards a Set of High-Quality Speech Synthesizers Free of Use for Non-Commercial Purposes. International Conference of Spoken Language Processing ’96. (1393–1396). Piscataway, New Jersey: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Fellbaum, K., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2008). Principles of electronic speech processing with applications for people with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 20, 55–85.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, A. L., Nusbaum, H. C., & Fenn, K. (2007). Effects of training on the acoustic-phonetic representation of synthetic speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1445–1465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freitas, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2008). Speech technologies for blind and low vision persons. Technology and Disability, 20, 135–156.
   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
• Goudiras, D., Papadopoulos, K., Koutsoklenis, A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stergiou, M. (2009). Factors affecting the reading media used by visually impaired adults. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 27, 111–127.
   Google Scholar
• Grancharov, V., & Kleijn, W. (2008). Speech quality assesment. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing. (pp 83–102.). New York: Springer-Verlag
   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, 100–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greene, B. G., Manous, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Perceptual evaluation of DECtalk: Final report on version 1.8. In Research on speech perception progress report No. 10. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology.
   Google Scholar
• Hensil, J., & Whittaker S. G. (2000). Visual reading versus auditory reading by sighted persons and persons with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 762–770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover, J., Reichle, J., VanTasell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425–431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hugdahl, K., Ek, M., Rintee, T., Tuomainen, J., Haaral, C., & Hämäläinen, K. (2004). Blind individuals show enhanced perceptual and attentional sensitivity for identification of speech sounds. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 28–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., Kent, R. D., & Beukelman, D. R. (1998). DECtalk and MacinTalk speech synthesizers: Intelligibility differences for three listeners groups. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 744–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas, K. A., & Allen, G. D. (1990). Intelligibility of synthetic speech for normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 751–755.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koul, R. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 49–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koul, R. K., & Allen, G. D. (1993). Segmental intelligibility and speech interference thresholds of high quality synthetic speech in presence of noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 790–798.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koul, R. K., & Hanners, J. (1997). Word identification and sentence verification of two synthetic speech systems by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 99–107.
   Google Scholar
• Koul, R., & Hester, K. (2006). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49, 47–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Menard, L., Dupont, S., Baum, S.R., & Aubin, J. (2009). Production and perception of French vowels by congenitally blind adults and sighted adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 1406–1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. R., & Atkins, C. P. (1989). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 84–88.
   Google Scholar
• Moos, A., Hertrich, I., Dietrich, S., Trouvain, J., & Ackermann, H. (2008). Perception of Ultra-Fast Speech by a Blind Listener – Does he use his visual system? In R. Sock, S. Fuchs, & Y. Laprie (Ed.), 8th International Seminar on Speech Production. Strasbourg, France: INRIA.
   Google Scholar
• Moos, A., & Trouvain, J. (2007). Comprehension of ultra-fast speech – Blind vs. “normally hearing” persons.In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (Ed.), 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. (677–680). Dudweiler, GermanyPirrot GmbH
   Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, K., Argyropoulos, V., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2008). Discrimination, perception and comprehension of synthetic speech by students with visual impairment: The case of similar acoustic patterns. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 420–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, K., & Koutsoklenis, A. (2009). Reading media used by higher-education students and graduates with visual impairments in Greece. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 772–779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, K., Koutsoklenis, A., Katemidou, E., & Okalidou, A. (2009). Perception of natural and synthetic speech by adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 403–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., & Greene, B. G. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 73 (pp. 1665–1676). doi:10.1109/PROC.1985.13346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, R. L. (1987). Quantifying the performance of text-to-speech synthesizers. Speech Technology, 3, 54–64.
   Google Scholar
• Ralston, J. V., Pisoni, D. B., Lively, S. E., Greene, B. G., & Mullennix, J. W. (1991). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: Word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening times. Human Factors, 33, 471–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ralston, J. V., Pisoni, D.B., & Mullennix, J.W. (1989). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule. In Research on speech perception progress report No. 15. (pp. 77–132). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeter, J. (2008). Basic principles of speech synthesis. In J. Benesty, M. Sondhi, & Y. Huang, (Eds.), Handbook of speech processing. (pp. 413–428). New York: Springer-Verlag
   Google Scholar
• Spiliotopoulos, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2009). Spoken dialogue interfaces: Integrating usability. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5889, 484–499.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, C., Lees, N., Vonwiller, J., & Burnham, D. (2005). On-line experimental methods to evaluate text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis: Effects of voice gender and signal quality on intelligibility, naturalness and preference. Computer Speech and Language, 19, 129–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trimmis, N., Papadeas, E., Papadas, T., Naxakis, S., Papathanasopoulos, P., & Goumas, P. (2006). Speech audiometry: Development of modern Greek word lists for suprathreshold Word-Recognition-Score (WRS) testing. The Mediterranean Journal of Otology, 2, 117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Von Berg, S., Panorska, A., Uken, D., & Qeadan, F. (2009). DECtalk and VeriVox: Intelligibility, likeability, and rate preference differences for four listener groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 1–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xydas, G., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2001a). The DEMOSTHéNES speech composer. In P. Taylor (Ed.), 4th ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Speech Synthesis (167–172). Perthshire, Scotland: International Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Xydas, G. & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2001b). Text-to-speech scripting interface for appropriate vocalisation of e-texts. In P. Dalsgaard, B. Lindberg, & H. Benner (Eds.), 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (2247–2250). Aalborg, Denmark: International Speech Communication Association
   Google Scholar
• Xydas, G., &, Kouroupetroglou, G. (2005). A target-selection method for generating F0 contours in short messaging applications. International Transactions on Speech Science and Engineering, 2, 109–120.
   Google Scholar
• Xydas, G., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2006). Tone-group F0 selection for modelling focus prominence in small-footprint speech synthesis. Speech Communication, 48, 1057–1078.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xydas, G., Spiliotopoulos, D., & Kouroupetroglou, G. (2005). Modelling improved prosody generation from high-level linguistically annotated corpora. IEICE Transactions of Information and Systems, 3, 510–518.
   Google Scholar
• Xydas, G., Zervas, P., Kouroupetroglou, G., Fakotakis, N., & Kokkinakis, G. (2005). Tree-based prediction of prosodic phrase breaks on top of shallow textual features. In N. Mamede (Ed), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. (3237–3240). Lisbon, Portugal: International Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Yuchtman, M., Nusbaum, H., & Pisoni, D. (1985). Consonant confusions and perceptual spaces for natural and synthetic speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78 (S1), 83.
   Google Scholar