This study investigated the intelligibility and comprehensibility of natural speech in comparison to synthetic speech. The results demonstrate the type of errors; the relationship between intelligibility and comprehensibility; and the correlation between intelligibility and comprehensibility and key factors, such as the frequency of use of text-to-speech systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BessF., & HumesL. E. (1995). Audiology: The fundamentals (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
2.
ClarkJ. E. (1983). Intelligibility comparisons for two synthetic and one natural speech source. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 37–49.
3.
DuffyS. A., & PisoniD. B. (1992). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35, 351–389.
4.
FucciD., ReynoldsM. E., BettagereR., & GonzalesM. D. (1995). Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 113–117.
5.
GreeneB. G., LoganJ. S., & PisoniD. 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.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
HooverJ., ReichleJ., VanTasellD., & ColeD. (1987). The intelligibility of synthesized speech: Echo II versus Votrax. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 425–431.
9.
KangasK. A., & AllenG. D. (1990). Intelligibility of synthetic speech for normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 751–755.
10.
KoulR. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 49–58.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
LoganJ. S., GreeneB. G., & PisoniD. B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566–581.
14.
MennenI., & OkalidouA. (2007). Greek speech acquisition. In McLeonS. (Ed.), The international guide to speech acquisition (pp. 398–411). New York: Thompson Delmar Learning.
15.
MirendaP., & BeukelmanD. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120–128.
16.
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, 123–128.
17.
MitchellP. R., & AtkinsC. P. (1989). A comparison of the single word intelligibility of two voice output communication aids. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 84–88.
18.
PapadopoulosK., ArgyropoulosV., & KouroupetroglouG. (2008). Discrimination and comprehension of synthetic speech by students with visual impairments: The case of similar acoustic patterns. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 426–429.
19.
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.
20.
RalstonJ. V., PisoniD. B., & MullennixJ. 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.
21.
ReynoldsM. E., & FucciD. (1998). Synthetic speech comprehension: A comparison of children with normal and impaired language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 458–466.
22.
ReynoldsM. E., & JeffersonL. (1999). Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: Comparison of children from two age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 174–182.
23.
TrimmisN., PapadeasE., PapadasT., NaxakisS., PapathanasopoulosP., & GoumasP. (2006). Speech audiometry: Development of modern Greek word lists for suprathreshold word-recognition-score (WRS) testing. Mediterranean Journal of Otology, 2, 117–126.
