ArticleJournal of communication disorders
Perceptions of people with aphasia about supporting reading with text-to-speech technology: A convergent mixed methods study.
Article in Journal of communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Experience of People With Aphasia Using Text-to-Speech Technology to Support Virtual Book Club Participation.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
- Comprehension, Processing Time, and Modality Preferences When People With Aphasia and Neurotypical Healthy Adults Read Books: A Pilot Study.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Reading Comprehension and Processing Time When People With Aphasia Use Text-to-Speech Technology With Personalized Supports and Features.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Lateral Multimodal Learning in a Saudi EFL Context: Investigating the Perceptions of Teachers and M2E Female Learners.F1000Research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionText-to-speech (TTS) technology is a possible reading support for people with aphasia; however, adoption for functional reading remains rare, and people with aphasia may have limited knowledge about TTS. Given this situation coupled with inherent communication challenges associated with aphasia, the purpose of this convergent mixed methods study was to explore the perceptions of participants about desired features, benefits, and drawbacks of TTS technology after having engaged in one-on-one education and guided practice activities.
methodsNineteen adults with chronic aphasia completed a single education and guided practice session followed by close-ended questions and participation in a semi-structured interview to explain preferences, concerns, beliefs, and opinions about potential TTS technology benefits and drawbacks. Three participants had previously used TTS technology for functional reading; all others had some prior exposure but did not use a system for functional purposes.
resultsSeventeen of 19 participants expressed TTS technology interest after education and guided practice activities. Participants endorsed selection of a preferred voice, control of speech output rate, and highlighting as priority features. Frequently endorsed benefits were improved comprehension and increased reading independence; some participants believed they would succeed in reading a greater variety of materials, communicate more with others, participate in more reading activities, and/or read faster. The greatest concern was mastering device operation; other concerns related to understanding the voice output, needing another person's help for system use, and matching the speech output rate to a preferred reading rate.
conclusionsOverall, most participants had positive perceptions about possible benefits afforded by TTS technology. Practitioners need to provide opportunities for people with aphasia to learn about and explore TTS systems to determine whether adoption is desired.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.