Summary
Objectives/hypothesis
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of level and type of experience
on response time and the number of replays needed when judging voice quality.
Study design
This was a within-subjects group design.
Methods
Speech-language pathologists, singing voice teachers, speech-language pathology graduate
students with and without experience with a voice client, graduate students who have
completed a voice pedagogy course, and inexperienced listeners (n = 60) rated stimuli
with systematically altered measurements of jitter, shimmer, and noise-to-harmonics
ratio (NHR) on a visual analog scale ranging from mild to severe for overall severity,
roughness, breathiness, strain, and pitch. Response time (in seconds) and number of
replays were recorded during the experiment.
Results
Results showed that experienced listeners took the most time when rating the stimuli.
Stimuli with two altered acoustical components also yielded longer response times
compared with the stimuli with one altered acoustical component. Finally, level and
type of experience had some effect on the number of replays for each stimulus during
the rating task.
Conclusions
In conclusion, experience does affect response time when judging voice quality and
the number of replays during voice quality rating tasks. Continued research is needed
regarding the reasons for extended time and replays as per experience so as to enhance
future training protocols.
Key Words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The effect of levels and types of experiences on judgment of synthesized voice quality.J Voice. 2013; 28: 24-35
- The effect of experience on perceptual spaces when judging synthesized voice quality: a multidimensional scaling study.J Voice. 2014; 28: 548-553
- Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality.J Voice. 1996; 11: 74-80
- Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers.J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112: 3014-3021
- Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132
- The perceptual structure of pathologic voice quality.J Acoust Soc Am. 1996; 100: 1787-1795
- Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality.J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104: 1598-1608
- The multidimensional nature of pathologic voice quality.J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 1291-1302
- When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks.J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 2354-2364
- Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40
- Individual differences in voice quality perception.J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35: 512-520
- Defining and Measuring Voice Quality. From Sound to Sense.MIT, 2004
- The reliability and validity of patient self-rating of their own voice quality.Clin Otolaryngol. 2005; 30: 357-361
- Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48: 323-335
- Reliability and confidence in using paired comparison paradigm in perceptual voice quality evaluation.Clin Linguist Phon. 2007; 21: 129-145
- Equal appearing interval and visual analogue scaling of perceptual roughness and breathiness.Clin Linguist Phon. 2004; 18: 211-229
- Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders.J Voice. 2006; 21: 576-590
- Analysis and Synthesis of Pathological Voice Quality.University of California, Los Angeles, CA2006
- Toward the development of an objective index of dysphonia severity: a four-factor model.Clin Linguist Phon. 2006; 20: 35-49
- Acoustic prediction of voice type in adult females with functional dysphonia.J Voice. 2005; 19: 268-282
- The effect of anchor modality on the reliability of vocal severity ratings.J Voice. 2009; 23: 341-352
- Outcomes measurement in voice disorders: an acoustic index of dysphonia severity.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009; 52: 482-499
National Association of Teachers of Singing. (n.d.) Membership qualifications. Available at: http://www.nats.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=102. Accessed May 10, 2010
- Understanding Voice Problems: A Physiological Perspective for Diagnosis and Treatment.Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD1996
Hillenbrand J. Getting started with Alvin2. 2005. Available at:http://homepages.wmich.edu/∼hillenbr/. Accessed January 30, 2010.
- Minitab Statistical Software, Release 14 [Computer Software].Minitab Inc, State College, PA2005
- The effect of experience on classification of voice quality.J Voice. 2012; 26: 299-303
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 13, 2015
Accepted:
May 29,
2015
Identification
Copyright
© 2016 The Voice Foundation
