Ralston J V, Pisoni D B, Lively S E, Greene B G, Mullennix J W
Indiana University, Bloomington 47405.
Hum Factors. 1991 Aug;33(4):471-91. doi: 10.1177/001872089103300408.
Previous comprehension studies using postperceptual memory tests have often reported negligible differences in performance between natural speech and several kinds of synthetic speech produced by rule, despite large differences in segmental intelligibility. The present experiments investigated the comprehension of natural and synthetic speech using two different on-line tasks: word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening. On-line task performance was slower and less accurate for passages of synthetic speech than for passages of natural speech. Recognition memory performance in both experiments was less accurate following passages of synthetic speech than of natural speech. Monitoring performance, sentence listening times, and recognition memory accuracy all showed moderate correlations with intelligibility scores obtained using the Modified Rhyme Test. The results suggest that poorer comprehension of passages of synthetic speech is attributable in part to the greater encoding demands of synthetic speech. In contrast to earlier studies, the present results demonstrate that on-line tasks can be used to measure differences in comprehension performance between natural and synthetic speech.
以往使用感知后记忆测试的理解研究常常报告称，尽管在音段可懂度上存在很大差异，但自然语音与几种规则生成的合成语音在表现上的差异微乎其微。本实验使用两种不同的在线任务来研究自然语音和合成语音的理解：单词监测和逐句听力。合成语音段落的在线任务表现比自然语音段落更慢且准确性更低。在两个实验中，合成语音段落之后的识别记忆表现都不如自然语音段落准确。监测表现、句子听力时间和识别记忆准确性都与使用改进韵律测试获得的可懂度分数呈现出中等程度的相关性。结果表明，合成语音段落的理解较差部分归因于合成语音更大的编码需求。与早期研究不同，目前的结果表明，在线任务可用于测量自然语音和合成语音在理解表现上的差异。
