A study of two forms of the Auditory Reading Test with 53 elderly participants with normal or low vision and normal or impaired hearing found that mild-to-moderate hearing loss did not reduce the participants’ auditory reading rate as much as was expected. It also found that the participants with low vision read at least as quickly using computer and natural speech as the sighted participants did when reading visually.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarverR. P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2.
HjelmquistE., DahlstrandU., & HedelinL. (1992). Visually impaired persons’ comprehension of text presented with speech synthesis. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 19, 426–428.
3.
HumesL. E., NelsonK. J., & PisoniD. B. (1991). Recognition of synthetic speech by hearing-impaired elderly listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1180–1184.
4.
JayantN. S., & NollP. (1984) Digital coding of waveforms.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
KatzJ. (1985). Handbook of clinical audiology.Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
6.
KoulR. K., & AllenG. 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.
7.
LodgeJ. (1996). Access technology: A guide to educational technology resources for visually impaired users.London: Royal National Institute for the Blind.
8.
MirandaP., & BeukelmanD. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120–128.
9.
O'ShaughnessyD. (1987). Speech communication: Human and machine.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
PisoniD. B., & HunnicuttS. (1980). Perceptual evaluation of MITalk: The MIT unrestricted text-to-speech system. Proceedings of the IEEE, 68, 572–575.
11.
PrattR. L. (1987). Quantifying the performance of text to speech synthesizers. Speech Technology, 5, 54–63.
12.
RounsefellS., ZuckerS., & RobertsT. (1993). Effects of listener training on intelligibility of augmentative and alternative speech in the secondary classroom. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 296–308.
13.
SchwabE. C., NusbaumH. C., & PisoniD. B. (1985). Some effects on training on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 395–408.
14.
SydeserffH. A., CaleyR. J., IsardS. D., JackM. A., MonaghanA. I. C., & VerhoevenJ. (1992). Evaluation of speech synthesis techniques in a comprehension task. Speech Communication, 11, 189–194.
15.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1997 (117th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
VenkatagiriH. S. (1994). Effect of sentence length and exposure on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 96–104.
