Word identification and sentence verification of two synthetic speech systems by individuals with intellectual disabilities

Effects of repeated listening experiences on the perception of synthetic speech by individuals with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities

“…These results are in agreement with previous findings from individuals with intellectual disabilities (Koul & Hanners;1997;Willis et al, 2000). Koul and Hanners (1997) observed that performance of individuals with intellectual disabilities was significantly superior on a word identification task than on a sentence verification task for a high quality synthesizer (DECtalk).…”

“…These results are in agreement with previous findings from individuals with intellectual disabilities (Koul & Hanners;1997;Willis et al, 2000). Koul and Hanners (1997) observed that performance of individuals with intellectual disabilities was significantly superior on a word identification task than on a sentence verification task for a high quality synthesizer (DECtalk). Furthermore, the performances of individuals with intellectual disabilities on a post-perceptual discourse comprehension task (Willis et al, 2000) presented in DECtalk synthetic speech was inferior in comparison to their performances on word identification and sentence verification tasks (Koul & Hanners, 1997).…”

“…Koul and Hanners (1997) observed that performance of individuals with intellectual disabilities was significantly superior on a word identification task than on a sentence verification task for a high quality synthesizer (DECtalk). Furthermore, the performances of individuals with intellectual disabilities on a post-perceptual discourse comprehension task (Willis et al, 2000) presented in DECtalk synthetic speech was inferior in comparison to their performances on word identification and sentence verification tasks (Koul & Hanners, 1997). The superior performances on a word task in contrast to a sentence task indicates that there may be an inverse relationship between accuracy of response to synthetic stimuli and complexity of the stimuli.…”

“…Although substantial data exists on the perception of synthetic speech systems by typical individuals (e.g., Duffy & Pisoni, 1992;Higginbotham & Baird, 1995;Koul & Allen, 1993;Logan, Greene, & Pisoni, 1989;Mirenda & Beukelman, 1987, very little research is available on the perception of synthetic speech by individuals with intellectual disabilities (Koul & Hanners;1997;Willis, Koul, & Paschall, 2000) or language impairment (Massey, 1988;Reynolds & Fucci, 1998). Further, differences in aspects of natural language comprehension (e.g., Abbeduto & Nuccio,1991;Abbeduto, Furman, & Davies, 1989;Berry, 1972;Merrill & Jackson, 1992;Rosenberg, 1982) and information processing (Kail, 1992;Taylor, Sternberg, & Richards, 1995) between individuals with intellectual disabilities and matched typical peers make it difficult to generalize findings obtained from current research in synthetic speech perception to individuals with intellectual disabilities.…”

“…However, only limited data are available on the perception of synthetic speech and practice effects as a result of repeated listening to synthetic speech in individuals with intellectual disabilities (Koul & Hanners, 1997;Willis et al, 2000). Koul and Hanners reported that individuals with mildto-moderate intellectual disabilities exhibited greater difficulties than typical individuals in the perception of high quality synthetic speech such as DECtalk.…”