Memory for synthetic speech versions of grade school-level materials was tested in two studies. In Experiment 1, two different versions of three simple stories were recorded in synthetic speech. The versions differed in prosody, one employing hand-applied pitch and stress and the other employing random stress. Free recall of the stories showed no consistent difference in performance as a function of the intonational pattern used. Experiment 2 compared the recall of a simple biographical sketch presented in either natural speech or synthetic speech. A sentence-by-sentence dictation test showed little difference in intelligibility of the texts, and the difference disappeared with minimal practice on synthetic speech. Free recall of the entire passage showed synthetic speech to be disadvantaged only in the case of nonpracticed listeners. Again, minimal practice with synthetic speech dispelled the differences.
Schmidt-Nielsen, A. Listener preference and comprehension tests of stress algorithms for a text-to-phonetic speech synthesis program (Report 8015). Washington, D.C: Naval Research Laboratory, September 9, 1976.
Cherry, C. On human communication (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1978.
Feustel, T. C., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. Capacity demands in the short-term memory for synthetic and natural word lists. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1981, 70, S98. (Abstract)
Ingemann, F. Speech synthesis by rule using the FÖVE program. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 1978, SR-54, 165-173.
Ingemann, F. The contributions of natural durations to speech synthesized by FOVE rules. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 1979, SR-58, 177-184.
Miller, G. A. Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.
Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. H. Consonant intelligibility in synthetic speech and in a natural speech control (modified rhyme test results). Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 1973, SR-33, 77-91.
Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. H. The intelligibility of synthetic monosyllable words in short syntactically normal sentences. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 1974, SR-37/38, 169-190.
Pisoni, D. B. Speeded classification of natural and synthetic speech in a lexical decision task. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1981, 70, S98. (Abstract)
Pisoni, D. B., & Hunnicutt, S. Perceptual evaluation of MITalk: The MIT unrestricted text-to-speech system. In 1980 IEEE International Conference Record on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, April 1980.
This research was supported by Grant MH-21153 from the National Institute of Mental Health to James J. Jenkins and Winifred Strange. The second author is a trainee of the Center for Research in Human Learning, supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant HD-00098). Special thanks are due to Astrid Schmidt-Nielsen for providing tapes of synthetic speech and to Haskins Laboratories and David Isenberg for the synthetic material used in the second experiment. We gratefully acknowledge the help of Janet Fridgen, who independently scored all of the recall materials to ensure reliability.
About this article
Cite this article
Jenkins, J.J., Franklin, L.D. Recall of passages of synthetic speech. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 20, 203–206 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334816
- Free Recall
- Lexical Decision Task
- Speech Synthesis
- Natural Speech
- Prefer Material