Skip to main content

Recall of passages of synthetic speech

Abstract

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.

Reference Note

  1. 1.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Cherry, C. On human communication (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ingemann, F. Speech synthesis by rule using the FÖVE program. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 1978, SR-54, 165-173.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Miller, G. A. Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Jenkins.

Additional information

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Free Recall
  • Lexical Decision Task
  • Speech Synthesis
  • Natural Speech
  • Prefer Material