The Effects of Various Types of Speech Output on Listener Comprehension Rates

Moody, Taryn S.; Joost, Michael G.; Rodman, Robert D.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-70304-0.50094-7

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apparently natural speech provides a more robust representation of information in the passages. This finding is consistent with the previous results of Luce (1981) and of Moody and Joost (1987), who reported that passages of natural speech were comprehended better than passages of synthetic speech.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The results obtained in the present set of experiments are similar to findings reported in previous comprehension studies. In experiments by Luce (1981), Hersch and Tartarglia (1983), and Moody and Joost (1987), reliable differences between natural and synthetic speech were observed in several comprehension measures, using postperceptual tests. The present findings suggest that passages of synthetic speech do indeed provide a degraded representation of textual information in memory.…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…In contrast, other comprehension studies have reported reliable differences in comprehension accuracy between natural and high-quality synthetic speech (Hersch and Tartarglia, 1983;Luce, 1981;Moody and Joost, 1987). In one study Luce (1981) used a recognition memory task to compare the comprehension of natural speech and synthetic speech produced by the MITalk system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies of intelligibility have consistently demonstrated reliable differences in performance between natural and synthetic speech. In contrast, comprehension studies using passages of connected speech have produced conflicting evidence, some reporting sizable differences between natural and synthetic speech (Hersch and Tartarglia, 1983;Luce, 1981;Moody and Joost, 1987) and others reporting no differences at all (Jenkins and Franklin, 1981;McHugh, 1976;Pisoni and Hunnicutt, 1980;Schwab, Nusbaum, and Pisoni, 1985). How can these findings be accounted for in a principled way?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, we attempted to determine whether reliable differences in comprehension performance between natural and synthetic speech could be detected using a recognition memory verification test with more carefully controlled items. The test questions used in several of the earlier studies could have been answered without listening to the passages (Jenkins and Franklin, 1981;Moody and Joost, 1987). Therefore we prescreened all test sentences used in the verification task to eliminate items that could be answered without knowledge of the contents of the passage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: Word Monitoring and Sentence-by-Sentence Listening Times

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous comprehension studies using postperceptual memory tests have often reported negligible differences in performance between natural speech and several kinds of synthetic speech produced by rule, despite large differences in segmental intelligibility. The present experiments investigated the comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using two different on-line tasks: word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening. On-line task performance was slower and less accurate for passages of synthetic speech than for passages of natural speech. Recognition memory performance in both experiments was less accurate following passages of synthetic speech than of natural speech. Monitoring performance, sentence listening times, and recognition memory accuracy all showed moderate correlations with intelligibility scores obtained using the Modified Rhyme Test. The results suggest that poorer comprehension of passages of synthetic speech is attributable in part to the greater encoding demands of synthetic speech. In contrast to earlier studies, the present results demonstrate that on-line tasks can be used to measure differences in comprehension performance between natural and synthetic speech.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: Word Monitoring and Sentence-by-Sentence Listening Times

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Speech, Language, and Audition

Baecker¹,

Grudin²,

Buxton³

et al. 1995

Readings in Human–Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnitude-Estimation Scaling of Computerized (Digitized) Speech under Different Listening Conditions

Bettagere

Fucci

1999

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of tape-recorded speech sentences and speech sentences digitized at low, moderate, and high sampling rates by young adults under different listening conditions (quiet vs noise) using magnitude-estimation scaling. A single group of 24 young adults participated as subjects. The tape-recorded speech sentences and digitized speech sentences were presented to each subject in quiet and in the presence of background noise at a signal-to-noise ratio of 0 dB. The subjects were instructed to use magnitude-estimation scaling to evaluate these sentences by assigning a number that corresponded to the speech quality of each sentence. An analysis of variance with repeated measures was performed to assess the effects of mode of speech and listening condition on the magnitude-estimation responses. The analysis showed that the main effects for mode of speech and listening condition were statistically significant. The interactions of mode of speech by listening condition were also statistically significant. Pairwise comparisons showed that the magnitude-estimation responses were higher in the quiet condition than in the corresponding noise condition for each level of mode of speech. Based on the results, the implications of the present study and several avenues for later research are discussed.

show abstract

The Effects of Various Types of Speech Output on Listener Comprehension Rates

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: Word Monitoring and Sentence-by-Sentence Listening Times

Comprehension of Synthetic Speech Produced by Rule: Word Monitoring and Sentence-by-Sentence Listening Times

Speech, Language, and Audition

Magnitude-Estimation Scaling of Computerized (Digitized) Speech under Different Listening Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About