Cognitive Considerations in Auditory User Interfaces: Neuroergonomic Evaluation of Synthetic Speech Comprehension

Author(s):  
Adrian Curtin ◽  
Hasan Ayaz
1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary E. Reynolds ◽  
Donald Fucci

This study compared the ability of children with normal language (NL) and children with specific language impairment (SLI) to comprehend natural speech and DECtalk synthetic speech by using a sentence verification task. The effect of listening practice on subjects' ability to comprehend both types of speech also was investigated. Subjects were matched for age and sex. Mean nonverbal intelligence scores of the groups did not differ significantly. Results showed that DECtalk was significantly more difficult for all subjects to comprehend than was natural speech and false sentences were significantly more difficult to comprehend than were true sentences. Response latencies shortened significantly from time 1 to time 2 for all subjects. Subjects with SLI had significantly more difficulty comprehending both natural and synthetic speech than did subjects with NL. Implications these results might have for theories of the underlying cause of specific language impairment are discussed.


1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda M. Huntress ◽  
Linda Lee ◽  
Nancy A. Creaghead ◽  
Daniel D. Wheeler ◽  
Kathleen M. Braverman

This study investigated the ability of aphasic patients with mild auditory comprehension problems to respond to synthetic speech produced by an inexpensive speech synthesizer attached to a personal computer. Subjects were given four practice sessions with synthetic speech; testing of synthetic speech comprehension was performed during Sessions 1 and 4. During testing, aphasic subjects' comprehension of synthetic speech was compared with their comprehension of natural speech on four tasks: (a) picture identification, (b) following commands, (c) yes/no questions, and (d) paragraph comprehension with yes/no questions. Aphasic subjects comprehended natural speech better than synthetic speech in Session 1 but not in Session 4. Their synthetic speech scores improved between Sessions 1 and 4. There was also a significant difference among scores on the four tasks for both sessions. The means for picture identification were highest, followed by yes/no questions, commands, and finally paragraph comprehension for both sessions. Although performance by some subjects on some tasks was accurate enough to indicate that an inexpensive speech synthesizer could be a useful tool for working with mild aphasic patients, considerable caution in selecting both tasks and patients is warranted.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly M. Fenn ◽  
Daniel Margoliash ◽  
Howard C. Nusbaum

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document