Computer-synthesized speech is frequently used as an assistive technology for people with speech disabilities including those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In this short article, the conditions that lead to speech loss and how people perceive computer-synthesized speech, particularly when it is used by the speaking disabled, are discussed. Specific attention is paid to the author's own program of research that has examined how perceptions of trustworthiness are moderated by the use of synthetic speech, whether the user is speech disabled, and the purpose for which the synthetic speech is used. Based on this research, four specific conclusions are presented.
Allport, G.W. (1958). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
2.
Bradac, J.J. (1998, November). It's all in your head. ICA Newsletter, 4-5.
3.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.
4.
Cook, T.E., & Flay, B.R. (1978). The persistence of experimentally induced attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 2-59). New York: Academic Press.
5.
Crandall, C.S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.
6.
Dabbs, J.M., Jr., & Janis, I.L. (1965). Why does eating while reading facilitate opinion change? An experimental inquiry. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 133-144.
7.
Drager, K.D.R., Justad, K.C., & Gable, K.L. (2004). Telephone communication: Synthetic and dysarthric speech intelligibility and listener preferences. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 103-112.
8.
Drager, K.D.R., & Reichle, J.E. (2001). Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 109-119.
9.
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.
10.
Engstrom, E. (1994). Effects of nonfluencies on speaker's credibility in newscast settings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 739-743.
11.
Erikson, B., Lind, E.A., Johnson, B.C., & O'Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of powerful and powerless speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
12.
Florman, S.C. (1981). Blaming technology: The irrational search for scapegoats. New York: St. Martin's Press.
13.
Gilbert, D.T., & Hixon, J.G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
14.
Hebl, M., & Kleck, R.E. (2000). The social consequences of physical disability . In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, J. G. Hull, & M. R. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 88-125). New York: Guilford.
15.
Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Affects of fear arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92.
16.
Koul, R. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 19, 49-58.
17.
Logan, J.S., Greene, B.G., & Pisoni, D.B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 86, 566-581.
18.
Mesthene, E.G. (1970). Technological change: It's impact on man and society . New York: Mentor Books.
19.
Mullennix, J.W., & Stern, S.E. (in press). Computer mediated speech technology: Perceptions of speech, and attitudes toward disabled users. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated communication. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
20.
Mullennix, J.W., Stern, S.E., Wilson, S.J., & Dyson, C. (2003). Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
21.
Mumford, L. (1963). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
22.
Murphy, J. (2004). "I prefer contact this close": Perceptions of AAC by people with motor neurone disease and their communication partners . Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 259-271.
23.
Neuberg, S.L., Smith, D.M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework . In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, J. G. Hull, & M. R. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31-61). New York: Guilford.
24.
Norman, D.A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
25.
Nusbaum, H.C., Francis, A.L., & Henly, A.S. (1995). Measuring the naturalness of synthetic speech . International Journal of Speech Technology, 1, 7-19.
26.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion . New York: Springer Verlag.
27.
Ralston, J.V., Pisoni, D.B., & Mullennix, J.W. (1995). Perception and comprehension of speech. In A. Syrdal, R. Bennett, & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 233-287). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
28.
Ryan, E.B. (2006). Finding a new voice: Writing through health adversity . Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 423-436.
29.
Sadd, S.M., Welkowitz, J., & Feldstein, S. (1978). Judgments of characteristics of speakers in a natural stress situation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 57-64.
30.
Smith, S.M., & Shaffer, D.R. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1051-1060.
31.
Snyder, M.L., Kleck, R.E., Strenta, A., & Mentzer, S.J. (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37, 2297-2306.
32.
Stern, S.E., Dumont, M., Mullennix, J.W., & Winters, M.L. (2007). Positive prejudice towards disabled persons using synthesized speech: Does the effect persist across contexts? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 363-380.
33.
Stern, S.E., Mullennix, J.W., Dyson, C., & Wilson, S.J. (1999). The persuasiveness of synthetic speech versus human speech. Human Factors, 41, 588-595.
34.
Stern, S.E., Mullennix, J.W., & Wilson, S.J. (2002). Effects of perceived disability on persuasiveness of computer-synthesized speech. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 411-417.
35.
Stevens, C., Lees, N., Vonwiller, J., & Burnham, D. (2005). On-line experimental methods to evaluate text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis: Effects of voice gender and signal quality on intelligibility, naturalness and preference. Computer Speech and Language, 19, 129-146.
36.
Venkatagiri, H.S. (2004). Segmental intelligibility of three text-to-speech synthesis methods in reverberant environments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 150-163.
Weitzel, A. (2000). Overcoming loss of voice. In D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 451-466). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Werner, C.M., Stoll, R., Birch, P., & White, P.H. (2002). Clinical validation and cognitive elaboration: Signs that encourage sustained recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 185-203.
40.
Woodall, W.G., & Burgoon, J.K. (1984). Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique and clarification. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 127-142.
