Perception of Synthetic and Natural Speech by Adults with Visual Impairments

Papadopoulos, Konstantinos; Koutsoklenis, Athanasios; Katemidou, Evangelia; Okalidou, Areti

doi:10.1177/0145482x0910300704

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tests were performed with the German Matrix test (Wagener et al, 1999). Some others suggested a dependence on synthetic voice quality (Clark, 1983;Pisoni et al, 1985;Greene et al, 1986;Beukelman, 1987, 1990;Kangas and Allen, 1990;Humes et al, 1991;Wolters et al, 2007;Papadopoulos et al, 2009;Cooke et al, 2013;Aoki et al, 2022). Finally, some authors found that natural voice had significantly higher intelligibility than synthetic voice (Koul, 2003;Venkatagiri, 2003;Simantiraki et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a French speech-in-noise self-test using synthetic voice in an adult population

Génin,

Courtial,

Balcon

et al. 2024

Front. Audiol. Otol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSpeech-in-noise (SIN) audiometry is a valuable part of audiological diagnostics and clinical measurements, providing information on an individual's ability to understand in noise. To date, such tests have been developed with natural voice presented monaurally or binaurally (via diotic and dichotic presentation). The time required to develop such tests is often long. The use of synthetic voice would simplify the test creation process and self-testing would improve accessibility.DesignMeasurements were performed using an Android tablet (Samsung Galaxy Tab A7) and calibrated Bluetooth headphones (Tilde Pro C, Orosound). Normative values were first defined using natural or synthetic voice on 69 normal-hearing participants. A total of 463 participants then undertook the SIN test comprising synthetic voice and dichotic antiphasic presentation. Of these, 399 also performed the SIN test with diotic presentation.ResultsNo significant differences in the speech reception threshold (SRT) were found between natural and synthetic voices for diotic presentations (p = 0.824, paired Student t-test) with normative values of −10.7 dB SNR (SD = 1.5 dB) and −10.4 dB SNR (SD = 1.4 dB), respectively. For the SoNoise test with synthetic voice and dichotic antiphasic presentation, the results showed a normative value of −17.5 dB SNR (SD = 1.5 dB), and a strong correlation (r = 0.797, p < 0.001) with the four-frequency pure-tone average (4f-PTA). Receiver operating curves (ROC) were then calculated: for a 4f-PTA of 20 dB hearing level (HL), the SRT was −14.5 dB SNR with a sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 89%. For a 4f-PTA of 30 dB HL, the SRT was −13.7 dB SNR with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 91%. For a 4f-PTA of 35 dB HL, the SRT was −13.0 dB SNR with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 93%. The normative binaural intelligibility level difference (BILD) value was 8.6 dB (SD = 2.0 dB) with normal-hearing participants. The learning effect due to the task and interface was 1.7 dB (1st to 7th test) and test duration was 3 min.ConclusionThe SoNoise test in its synthetic dichotic antiphasic presentation is a fast and reliable tool to diagnose hearing impairment at 20, 30, and 35 dB HL cut-offs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a French speech-in-noise self-test using synthetic voice in an adult population

Génin,

Courtial,

Balcon

et al. 2024

Front. Audiol. Otol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The discrimination, perception and comprehension of synthetic speech (used in Digital Talking Books) by visually impaired students has been already studied [34][35][36].…”

Section: Book Production In Alternative Accessible Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving Accessible Science Books for the Blind Students of Physics

Kacorri¹

2010

AIP Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a novel integrated methodology for the development and production of accessible physics and science books from the elementary up to tertiary educational levels. This language independent approach adopts the Design-for-All principles, the available international standards for alternative formats and the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Guidelines. Moreover it supports both static (embossed and refreshable tactile) and dynamic (based on synthetic speech and other sounds) accessibility. It can produce Tactile Books (Embossed Braille and Tactile Graphics), Digital Talking Books (or Digital Audio Books), Large Print Books as well as Acoustic-Tactile Books for the blind and visually impaired students as well as but for the print-disabled. This methodology has been successfully applied in the case of blind students of the Physics, Mathematics and Informatics Departments in the University of Athens.

show abstract

“…In a recent study involving individuals with visual impairments, Papadopoulos, Koutsoklenis, Katemidou, and Okalidou (2009) found that the participants demonstrated significantly better performance when identifying words and sentences presented via natural speech than via synthetic speech; and had accuracy scores ranging from 89.92% to 99.2 % for words presented via the TTS synthesizer and natural speech, respectively. Papadopoulos, Argyropoulos, and Kouroupetroglou (2008) examined intelligibility and comprehensibility performance of students with and without visual impairments who were asked to repeat acoustic patterns produced by synthetic speech.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Differences Among Sighted Individuals and Individuals with Visual Impairments in Word Intelligibility Presented via Synthetic and Natural Speech

Papadopoulos

Katemidou

Koutsoklenis

et al. 2010

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated word intelligibility among sighted individuals and individuals with visual impairments for both natural and synthetic speech. Both groups of participants performed significantly better when identifying words presented via natural speech. The results also demonstrated that individuals with visual impairments were more successful than their sighted peers in understanding words presented via synthetic speech, with experience being the most critical factor in identifying words for the participants with visual impairments. Finally, the findings show the correlation between intelligibility and key factors such as age and the overall use of text-to-speech systems.

show abstract

Perception of Synthetic and Natural Speech by Adults with Visual Impairments

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Development and validation of a French speech-in-noise self-test using synthetic voice in an adult population

Development and validation of a French speech-in-noise self-test using synthetic voice in an adult population

Deriving Accessible Science Books for the Blind Students of Physics

Differences Among Sighted Individuals and Individuals with Visual Impairments in Word Intelligibility Presented via Synthetic and Natural Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About