{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009456264775413711, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0070921985815602835, 'mean_word_length': 5.32089552238806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Overt responses of listeners to alaryngeal speech

The investigators observed and analyzed the nonverbal and verbal reactions of 30 service station attendants who were exposed to alaryngeal speech produced with an electronic larynx and the reactions of another 30 attendants who heard normal speech. Although there was a significant difference between the patterns of response of the two groups of subjects, the difference was attributable primarily to responses on only three of the 16 behavior categories studied. Subjects who heard alaryngeal speech tended to stare more or speak louder or slower. The authors concluded that listener reactions should not be cited as an argument against the use of an artificial larynx; potential adverse reactions will be minimal, can be coped with easily, and will not interfere with effective communication.