Automated speech technology and intelligent computer assisted instruction offer unique solutions to problems of training teams in communication and coordination skills. At this point in the emergence of automated speech technology, scientists have only begun to explore its training uses. This report reviews the goals and accomplishments of automated speech processing and its application to training, especially military team training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersR. M.GradyM. W.NovellL. H.OvertonM. A.A laboratory system for air intercept controller training. (Technical Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0053–1). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center, January 1979. (NTIS No. AD A069060).
2.
BreauxR.Training characteristics of the Automated Adaptive Ground Controlled Approach Radar Controller Training System (GCA-CTS) (Technical Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN TN-52). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center, July 1976.
3.
EggemeierF. T.CreamB. W.Some considerations in development of team training devices. In Psychological Fidelity in Simulated Work Environments, ErwinDonald E. (Ed.), Proceedings of a Symposium, American Psychological Association. Toronto, Canada: August 1978.
4.
GoldsteinD.NormanD. A.CharlesJ. P.FeugeR. L.GradyM. W.BarkovicM. H.Ears for automated instruction systems: Why try? In NTEC/Industry Conference Proceedings: Training Economy Through Simulators, November 1974, pp. 253–267.
5.
GradyM. W.Advanced speech technology – The natural man/machine interface. In Second International Conference on System, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE Proceedings, 1976, pp. 1–4.
6.
GradyM. W.HicklinM. B.PorterJ. E.Practical applications of interactive voice technologies – Some accomplishments and prospects. In Proceedings: Technology in Air Traffic Control Training and Simulation. Warrenton, VA: Society for Applied Learning Technology, February 1978, II, pp. 100–109.
7.
GradyM. W.PorterJ. E.SatzerW. J.Jr.SprouseB. D.Speech understanding in air intercept controller training system design (Technical Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0044–1). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Equipment Center, January 1979. (NTIS No. AD A068612).
8.
JohnstonW. A.BriggsG. E.Team performance as a function of team arrangement and workload. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52 (2), 89–94.
9.
KnerrC. M.BergerD. C.PopelkaB. A.Sustaining team performance: A systems model. Interim Report. DARPA Contract No. MDA903–79-C-0209. Springfield, VA: Litton Mellonics, March 31, 1980.
10.
MartinT. B.A practical voice input system. In SeidelR. J.RubinM. L. (Eds.), Computers and communications: Implications for education. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
11.
MartinT. B.One way to talk to computers. IEEE Spectrum, May 1977, pp. 35–39.
12.
MeisterD.Behavioral foundations of system development. New York: John Wiley, 1976.
13.
NewellA.BarnettJ.ForgieJ. W.GreenC.KlattD.LickliderJ. C. R.MunsonJ.ReddyD. R.WoodsW. A.Speech understanding systems. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1973.
14.
O'BrienG. E.OwensA. G.Effects of organizational structure on correlations between member abilities and group productivity. In BassB. M.DeepS. D. (Eds.), Studies in organizational psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972.
15.
RobinsonA. L.More people are talking to computers as speech recognition enters the real world. Science, February 16, 1979, pp. 634–638.
16.
SteinerI. D.Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 273–283.
17.
SteinerI. D.Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
18.
ThurmondP.KribsH. D.Computerized collective training for teams (ARI Final Report TR-78-A1). Alexandria, VA: Sensors, Data, Decisions, Inc., February 1978.
