Literature DB >> 1835449

Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening times.

J V Ralston1, D B Pisoni, S E Lively, B G Greene, J W Mullennix.   

Abstract

Previous comprehension studies using postperceptual memory tests have often reported negligible differences in performance between natural speech and several kinds of synthetic speech produced by rule, despite large differences in segmental intelligibility. The present experiments investigated the comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using two different on-line tasks: word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening. On-line task performance was slower and less accurate for passages of synthetic speech than for passages of natural speech. Recognition memory performance in both experiments was less accurate following passages of synthetic speech than of natural speech. Monitoring performance, sentence listening times, and recognition memory accuracy all showed moderate correlations with intelligibility scores obtained using the Modified Rhyme Test. The results suggest that poorer comprehension of passages of synthetic speech is attributable in part to the greater encoding demands of synthetic speech. In contrast to earlier studies, the present results demonstrate that on-line tasks can be used to measure differences in comprehension performance between natural and synthetic speech.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1835449      PMCID: PMC3518837          DOI: 10.1177/001872089103300408

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  10 in total

1.  ARTICULATION-TESTING METHODS: CONSONANTAL DIFFERENTIATION WITH A CLOSED-RESPONSE SET.

Authors:  A S HOUSE; C E WILLIAMS; M H HEKER; K D KRYTER
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1965-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule.

Authors:  J S Logan; B G Greene; D B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  List length and the time course of recognition in immediate memory.

Authors:  A V Reed
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1976-01

4.  Some Effects of Perceptual Load on Spoken Text Comprehension.

Authors:  Hans Brunner; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav       Date:  1982-04

5.  Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech.

Authors:  E C Schwab; H C Nusbaum; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 2.888

6.  The intelligibility of synthesized speech: ECHO II versus VOTRAX.

Authors:  J Hoover; J Reichle; D Van Tasell; D Cole
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1987-09

Review 7.  Review of text-to-speech conversion for English.

Authors:  D H Klatt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural speech.

Authors:  P A Luce; T C Feustel; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 2.888

9.  Effects of target monitoring on understanding fluent speech.

Authors:  M A Blank; D B Pisoni; C L McClaskey
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-04

10.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension.

Authors:  M A Just; P A Carpenter
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 8.934

  10 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: a review and theoretical interpretation.

Authors:  S A Duffy; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1992 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.500

2.  The "voice" has it: screen reader adoption and switching behavior among vision impaired persons in India.

Authors:  Ted McCarthy; Joyojeet Pal; Edward Cutrell
Journal:  Assist Technol       Date:  2013

3.  Effect of Spectral Channels on Speech Recognition, Comprehension, and Listening Effort in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Carina Pals; Anastasios Sarampalis; Andy Beynon; Thomas Stainsby; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.