PubMed · 10135562
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Dunn. 1994. What will we be?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10135562/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
To determine whether expert fluency ratings of read speech can be predicted on the basis of automatically calculated temporal measures of speech quality, an experiment was conducted with read speech of 20 native and 60 non-native speakers of Dutch. The speech material was scored for fluency by nine experts and was then analyzed by means of an automatic speech recognizer in terms of quantitative measures such as speech rate, articulation rate, number and length of pauses, number of dysfluencies, mean length of runs, and phonation/time ratio. The results show that expert ratings of fluency in read speech are reliable (Cronbach's alpha varies between 0.90 and 0.96) and that these ratings can be predicted on the basis of quantitative measures: for six automatic measures the magnitude of the correlations with the fluency scores varies between 0.81 and 0.93. Rate of speech appears to be the best predictor: correlations vary between 0.90 and 0.93. Two other important determinants of reading fluency are the rate at which speakers articulate the sounds and the number of pauses they make. Apparently, rate of speech is such a good predictor of perceived fluency because it incorporates these two aspects.