JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.32 245-251 June 1989.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Watson, C. S.
Right arrow Articles by Maki, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Watson, C. S.
Right arrow Articles by Maki, D.

The Indiana Speech Training Aid (ISTRA) I

Comparisons between Human and Computer-Based Evaluation of Speech Quality

Charles S. Watson 1
Daniel J. Reed 2
Diane Kewley-Port 1

Daniel Maki 3

1 Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University
2 Department of Linguistics, Indiana University
3 Department of Mathematics, Indiana University

Experimental comparisons are reported between computer-based and human judgments of speech quality for the same sets of utterances. Speech stimuli were recorded from two normal talkers, who intentionally varied the quality of their speech, and from a hearing-impaired child who was receiving speech therapy on the Indiana Speech Training Aid (ISTRA). The tape recordings were submitted for evaluation to a naive jury, an expert jury, and the ISTRA System, a microcomputer equipped with a speaker-dependent speech recognition board that generated scores representing how well utterance matched a stored template. Correlational analyses of these data indicated that humans were slightly better at judging speech quality than was the computer, but that the computer was much more reliable. These results demonstrate that computer-based speech evaluation may be a reasonable substitute for human judgments for certain types of speech drill.

Submitted on February 21, 1988
Accepted on July 24, 1988







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.