Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Smartphone speech-to-text applications for communication with profoundly deaf patients

  • F C Lyall, P J Clamp, D Hajioff
  • Journal:
    The Journal of Laryngology & Otology / Volume 130 / Issue 1 / January 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 November 2015, pp. 104-106
    Print publication:
    January 2016
  • Objective:

    Visual communication aids, such as handwriting or typing, are often used to communicate with deaf patients in the clinic. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of communicating through smartphone speech recognition software compared with writing or typing.

    Method:

    Thirty doctors and medical students were timed writing, typing and dictating a standard set of six sentences appropriate for a post-operative consultation, and the results were assessed for accuracy and legibility.

    Results:

    The mean time for smartphone dictation (17.8 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 17.0–18.7) was significantly faster than writing (59.2 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 56.6–61.7) or typing (44 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 41.0–47.1) (p < 0.001). Speech recognition was slightly less accurate, but accuracy increased with time spent dictating.

    Conclusion:

    Smartphone dictation is a feasible alternative to typing and handwriting. Slow speech may improve accuracy. Early clinical experience has been promising.