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


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.41 458-466 April 1998.
© 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Fucci, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Fucci, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Synthetic Speech Comprehension

A Comparison of Children With Normal and Impaired Language Skills

Mary E. Reynolds 1
Donald Fucci 2
1 Marshall University Huntington, WV
2 Ohio University Athens

reynoldm{at}marshall.edu

This study compared the ability of children with normal language (NL) and children with specific language impairment (SLI) to comprehend natural speech and DECtalk synthetic speech by using a sentence verification task. The effect of listening practice on subjects' ability to comprehend both types of speech also was investigated. Subjects were matched for age and sex. Mean nonverbal intelligence scores of the groups did not differ significantly. Results showed that DECtalk was significantly more difficult for all subjects to comprehend than was natural speech and false sentences were significantly more difficult to comprehend than were true sentences. Response latencies shortened significantly from time 1 to time 2 for all subjects. Subjects with SLI had significantly more difficulty comprehending both natural and synthetic speech than did subjects with NL. Implications these results might have for theories of the underlying cause of specific language impairment are discussed.

KEY WORDS: specific language impairment (SLI), synthetic speech, comprehension, response latency, DECtalk

Submitted on September 12, 1996
Accepted on September 5, 1997


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JSLHRHome page
L. W. Norrix, E. Plante, R. Vance, and C. A. Boliek
Auditory-Visual Integration for Speech by Children With and Without Specific Language Impairment
J Speech Lang Hear Res, December 1, 2007; 50(6): 1639 - 1651.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
J. A. Coady, J. L. Evans, E. Mainela-Arnold, and K. R. Kluender
Children With Specific Language Impairments Perceive Speech Most Categorically When Tokens Are Natural and Meaningful
J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2007; 50(1): 41 - 57.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
P. M. Evitts and J. Searl
Reaction Times of Normal Listeners to Laryngeal, Alaryngeal, and Synthetic Speech
J Speech Lang Hear Res, December 1, 2006; 49(6): 1380 - 1390.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
R. Koul and K. Hester
Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition of synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities.
J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2006; 49(1): 47 - 57.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.