1987
DOI: 10.1177/016555158701300102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Man machine interaction by voice: Developments in speech technology

Abstract: Man-machine communication by voice is no longer a far-fetched notion Indeed the ' talking and listening' machine has already left the frontiers of science fiction fantasv. This paper outlines the limitations of existing means of commumcation with computers and the background to developments in voice input/output technology. Within the area of man-machine communication by voice there are three main avenues of research: speech synthesis (voice output), speaker recognition (identification and verification), and s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1987
1987
1998
1998

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, Blaise is a more complex system and there m a wuder variety of voice prompts and none of the users in our experiments got to the position where these prompts were so familiar to them that they were becoming irksome. It may be that after a user had been using the voice interface to Blaise for a much longer period, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] hours, rather than 3-6 hours, they would find the repetition of voice prompts irritable and switch the voice output off as users of MicroBIItD tend to do. Another reason could well be that MicroBIRD required repeated confirmation from the user as a safeguard against misrecognition of spoken entries, however the Table 3 Comparison of performance of male and female subjects showing that our eight female subjects were vlightlv faster with a kevboard and slower with «ce mput than the male subjects.…”
Section: Voice Inputmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, Blaise is a more complex system and there m a wuder variety of voice prompts and none of the users in our experiments got to the position where these prompts were so familiar to them that they were becoming irksome. It may be that after a user had been using the voice interface to Blaise for a much longer period, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] hours, rather than 3-6 hours, they would find the repetition of voice prompts irritable and switch the voice output off as users of MicroBIItD tend to do. Another reason could well be that MicroBIRD required repeated confirmation from the user as a safeguard against misrecognition of spoken entries, however the Table 3 Comparison of performance of male and female subjects showing that our eight female subjects were vlightlv faster with a kevboard and slower with «ce mput than the male subjects.…”
Section: Voice Inputmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditionally the man-machine interface for these systems has been the keyboard and screen. We believe that a speech interface has several potential advantages over the existing &dquo;speechless&dquo; method [11][12][13]. Speech is the most natural form of communication and should therefore speed up the search process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Speech technology consists of three developments: Speech synthesis (output), speech recognition (voice input), and speaker recognition (verification/identification) (Philip & Young, 1987). Speech synthesis is a fairly well established technology and it involves the automatic conversion of text to speech.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Part I, we have outlined the major developments in speech technology and the problems that must be overcome before such systems become widely applicable [23]. The object of this paper is to discuss the existing and potential applications of this evolving technology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%