A comparison of intelligibility among natural speech and seven speech synthesizers with listeners from three age groups

References

• Adaptive Communication Systems, Inc. (1988). Words +, Inc. 1988 Catalogue. Box 12440, Pittsburgh, PA 15231 USA.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J., & Pisoni, D. B. (1980). Unlimited text-to-speech device: Description and evaluation of a microprocessor-based system. In The 1980 IEEE International Conference Record on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (pp. 576–579).
   Google Scholar
• Boubekker, M., Foulds, R., & Norman, C. (1986). Human quality synthetic speech based upon concatenated diphones. In Proceed-ings of the RESNA 9th Annual Conference (pp. 405–407).
   Google Scholar
• Crabtree, M. (1988). Age and gender preferences for synthetic and natural speech of listeners in four age groups. Unpublished manu-script, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, W. J. (Ed.) (1985). BMDP Statistical software manual. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Revised Version. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Egan, J. P. (1948). Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope, 58, 955–991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, B. G., Manous, L. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Preliminary evaluation of DECtalk. Speech Research Lab Technical Note 84-03, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, J., Reichle, J., Van Tasell, D., & Cole, D. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo ll versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425–431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H., & Kryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation testing methods: Consonantial differentiation with a closed-response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
   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. 1/, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
   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
• Mirenda, P., Either, D., Beukelman, D. R. (1989). Synthetic and natural speech preferences of males and females in four age groups. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 175–183.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Myers, J. L. (1966). Fundamentals of experimental design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 235–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. (1974). The intelligibility of synthetic monosyllabic words in short, syntactically normal sentences. Has-kins Lab Status Report on Speech Research, 38, 169–190.
   Google Scholar
• Pisoni, D. B., & Hunnicutt, S. (1980). Perceptial evaluation of MITalk: The MIT unrestricted text-to-speech system. In The 1980 IEEE International Conference Record on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (pp. 572–575).
   Google Scholar
• Pisoni, D. B., Manous, L. M., & Dedina, M. J. (1986). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: II. Effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 12, Bloomington, IN: Indi-ana University.
   Google Scholar
• Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., & Greene, B. G. (1985). Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. The Proceedings of the IEEE, 73, 1665–1676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, E. C., Nusbaum, H. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Some effects of training on the perception on synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 395–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPSSx User's Guide, 2nd Ed. (1986). New York: McGraw-Hill and Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Talbot, M. (1987). Reaction time as a metric for the intelligibility of synthetic speech. In J. A. Waterworth & M. Talbot (Eds.), Speech and language-based interaction with machines: Towards the con-versational computer. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K. M., Beukelman, D. R., & Traynor, C. (1984). Comput-erized assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar