This study examined the effect of four presentation rates (approximately 130, 150, 170, and 190 words per minute) on the comprehension of natural and synthesized speech by having 96 subjects [1 man, 95 women ranging in age from 18 to 40 years (M = 21.0)] perform a sentence-verification task. Analysis showed that, while their response latencies were significantly faster to natural than to synthesized speech, presentation rate did not have a significant effect on response latencies when sentences were presented at rates within the average speaking range (approximately 130 to 190 words per minute). Implications diese findings may have for the use of synthesized speech in human factors applications are discussed.
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, MD: Williams & Willdns.
2.
BondZ. S.MooreT. J.GableB. G. (1994) Listening in a second language. (Unpublished manuscript).
3.
BruckertE. (1984) A new text-to-speech product produces dynamic human-quality voice. Speech Technology, 2, 114–119.
4.
DehaanH. J. (1977) A speech-rate intelligibility threshold for speeded and time-compressed connected speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 366–372.
5.
DuffyS. A.PisoniD. B. (1992) Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Speech, 35, 351–389.
6.
EdwardsA. D. N. (1991) Speech synthesis: technology for disabled people. London: Paul Chapman.
7.
FucciD.ReynoldsM. E.BettagereR.GonzalesM. D. (1995) Synthetic speech intelligibility under several experimental conditions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 113–117.
8.
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, 100–107.
9.
HegdeM. N. (1994) Clinical research in communicative disorders: principles and strategies. (2nd ed.) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
10.
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.
11.
JenkinsJ. J.FranklinL. D. (1982) Recall of passages of synthetic speechBulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 203–206.
12.
KoulR. J.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.
13.
LockS.LeongC. K. (1989) Program library for DECtalk text-to-speech system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 21, 394–400.
14.
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.
15.
LuceP. A.FeustelT. C.PisoniD. B. (1983) Capacity demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors, 25, 17–32.
16.
ManousL. M.PisoniD. B.DedinaM. J.NusbaumH. C. (1985) Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using a sentence verification task. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 11. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univer.
17.
MaricsM. A.WilligesB. H. (1988) The intelligibility of synthesized speech in data inquiry systems. Human Factors, 30, 719–732.
18.
McNaughtonD.FallonK.TodJ.WeinerF.NeisworthJ. (1994) Effect of repeated listening experiences on the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 161–168.
19.
MirendaP.BeukelmanD. R. (1987) A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120–128.
20.
MoodyT.JoostM.RodmanR. (1987) The effects of various types of speech output on listener comprehension rates. In BullingerH. J.ShackelB. (Eds.), Human-computer interaction-INTERACT′87. North-Holland: Elsevier Science. 573–579.
NusbaumH. C.PisoniD. B. (1985) Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 235–242.
23.
PisoniD. B.ManousL. M.DedinaM. J. (1987) Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 303–320.
24.
PisoniD. B.NusbaumH. C.GreeneB. G. (1985) Perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Proceedings of the IEEE, 73, 1665–1676.
25.
PrattR. L. (1987) Quantifying the performance of text-to-speech synthesizers. Speech Technology, 3, 54–64.
26.
ReynoldsM. E.BondZ. S.FucciD. (1996) Synthetic speech intelligibility: comparison of native and non-native speakers of English. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 32–36.
27.
ReynoldsM. E.FucciD. (1998) Synthetic speech comprehension: comparison of children with normal and impaired language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 458–466.
28.
ReynoldsM. E.Isaacs-DuvallC.ShewardB.RotterM. (2000) An examination of the effect of listening practice on synthesized speech comprehension. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 250–259.
29.
ReynoldsM. E.JeffersonL. (1999) Natural and synthetic speech comprehension: comparison of children from two age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 174–182.
30.
RounsefellS.ZuckerS. H.RobertsT. G. (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.
31.
ScherzJ. W.BeerM. M. (1995) Factors affecting the intelligibility of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 74–78.
32.
SchwabE. C.NusbaumH. C.PisoniD. B. (1985) Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 395–408.
33.
SlowtaczekL. M.NusbaumH. C. (1983) Intelligibility of fluent synthetic sentences: effects of speech rate, pitch contour, and meaning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73(Suppl. 1), S103.
34.
SlowiaczekL. M.NusbaumH. C. (1985) Effects of speech rate and pitch contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 701–712.
35.
WalkerV. G. (1988) Durational characteristics of young adults during speaking and reading tasks. Folia Phoniatricia, 40, 12–20.
36.
Yeni-KomshianG. (1993) Speech perception. In GleasonJ. B.RatnerN. B. (Eds.), Psycholinguistics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College. 89–131.
