This study examined the perceptions held by sighted students and students with visual impairments of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of similar acoustic patterns produced by synthetic speech. It determined the types of errors the students made and compared the performance of the two groups on auditory discrimination and comprehension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmatoS. (2002). Standards for competence in braille literacy skills in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 143–154.
2.
ArgyropoulosV., PapadopoulosK., KouroupetroglouG., XydasG., & KatsoulisF. (2007). Discrimination and perception of the acoustic rendition of texts by blind people. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4556, 205–213.
3.
ArterC., & LaytonL. (2000). Reading preferences of pupils with visual impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 18, 41–44.
4.
BeukelmanD. R., & YorkstonK. M. (1979). The relationship between information transfer and speech intelligibility of dysarthric speakers. Journal of Communication Disorders, 12, 189–196.
5.
DuffyS. A., & PisoniD. B. (1992). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35(4), 351–389.
6.
DutoitT. (1997). An introduction to text-to-speech synthesis.London: Kluwer Academic.
7.
FellbaumK., & KouroupetroglouG. (2008). Principles of electronic speech processing with applications for people with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 20, 1–31.
8.
FelleniusK. (1999). Computer-based instruction for young braille readers in mainstream education—An evaluation study. Visual Impairment Research, 1, 147–164.
9.
FucciD., ReynoldsM. E., BettagereR., & GonzalesM. D. (1995). Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 113–117.
10.
HakulinenJ., TurunenM., & RaihaK. (1999). The use of prosodic features to help users extract information from structured elements in spoken dialogue systems. Proceedings of the ESCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Dialogue and Prosody, Eindhoven, the Netherlands (pp. 65–70). Grenoble: International Speech Communication Association.
11.
HensilJ., & WhittakerS. G. (2000). Visual reading versus auditory reading by sighted persons and persons with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 762–770.
12.
HigginbothamD. J., DrazekA. L., KowarskyK., ScallyC., & SegalE. (1994). Discourse comprehension of synthetic speech delivered at normal and slow presentation rates. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 191–202.
13.
KoulR. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 49–58.
14.
KoulR., & ClapsaddleK. C. (2006). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the perception of synthetic speech by individuals with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 112–122.
15.
KoulR. K., & HannersJ. (1997). Word identification and sentence verification of two synthetic speech systems by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 99–107.
16.
MirendaP., & BeukelmanD. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3(3), 120–128.
17.
MirendaP., & BeukelmanD. 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.
18.
RalstonJ. V., PisoniD. B., LivelyS. E., GreeneB. G., & MullennixJ. W. (1991). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: Word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening times. Human Factors, 33, 471–491.
19.
RamanT. V. (1992). An audio view of (LA)-TEX documents, TUGboat, 13, 372–379.
20.
ReynoldsM. E., & JeffersonL. (1999). Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: Comparison of children from two age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 174–182.
21.
ShriverS., BlackA., & RosenfeldR. (2000). Audio signals in speech interfaces. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP) Beijing, China (Vol. 1, pp. 142–145). Grenoble: International Speech Communication Association.
22.
WadsworthB. J. (1989). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
23.
XydasG., & KouroupetroglouG. (2001). The DEMOSTHeNES Speech Composer. Proceedings of the 4th ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Perthshire, Scotland (pp. 167–172). Grenoble: International Speech Communication Association.
24.
XydasG., & KouroupetroglouG. (2006). Tone-group F0 selection for modelling focus prominence in small-footprint speech synthesis. Speech Communication, 48, 1057–1078.
25.
XydasG., ArgyropoulosV., KarakostaT., & KouroupetroglouG. (2005). An experimental approach in recognizing synthesized auditory components in a non-visual interaction with documents. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII2005), Las Vegas, Nevada (pp. 411–420). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
