Advertisement

The Effect of Experience on Response Time When Judging Synthesized Voice Quality

Published:October 13, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.05.017

      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 access
      One-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 Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sofranko J.L.
        • Prosek R.A.
        The effect of levels and types of experiences on judgment of synthesized voice quality.
        J Voice. 2013; 28: 24-35
        • Sofranko Kisenwether J.L.
        • Prosek R.A.
        The effect of experience on perceptual spaces when judging synthesized voice quality: a multidimensional scaling study.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 548-553
        • De Bodt M.
        • Wuyts F.
        • Van de Heyning P.
        • Croux C.
        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
        • Eadie T.L.
        • Doyle P.C.
        Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112: 3014-3021
        • Kempster G.
        • Gerratt B.R.
        • Verdolini-Abbott K.
        • Barkmeier–Kraemer J.
        • Hillman R.
        Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.
        The perceptual structure of pathologic voice quality.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1996; 100: 1787-1795
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.
        Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104: 1598-1608
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.R.
        • Berke G.S.
        The multidimensional nature of pathologic voice quality.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 1291-1302
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.R.
        • Ito M.
        When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 2354-2364
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.
        • Kempster G.
        • Erman A.
        • Berke G.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.
        • Precoda K.
        • Berke G.
        Individual differences in voice quality perception.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35: 512-520
        • Kreiman J.
        • Vanlancker-Sidtis D.
        • Gerratt B.
        Defining and Measuring Voice Quality. From Sound to Sense.
        MIT, 2004
        • Lee M.
        • Drinnan M.
        • Carding P.N.
        The reliability and validity of patient self-rating of their own voice quality.
        Clin Otolaryngol. 2005; 30: 357-361
        • Shrivastav R.
        • Sapienza C.M.
        • Nandur V.
        Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48: 323-335
        • Yiu E.M.L.
        • Chan K.M.K.
        • Mok R.S.M.
        Reliability and confidence in using paired comparison paradigm in perceptual voice quality evaluation.
        Clin Linguist Phon. 2007; 21: 129-145
        • Yiu E.M.L.
        • NG C.
        Equal appearing interval and visual analogue scaling of perceptual roughness and breathiness.
        Clin Linguist Phon. 2004; 18: 211-229
        • Karnell M.
        • Melton S.
        • Childes J.
        • Coleman T.
        • Dailey S.
        • Hoffman H.
        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
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.R.
        • Antoñanzas-Barroso N.
        Analysis and Synthesis of Pathological Voice Quality.
        University of California, Los Angeles, CA2006
        • Awan S.N.
        • Roy N.
        Toward the development of an objective index of dysphonia severity: a four-factor model.
        Clin Linguist Phon. 2006; 20: 35-49
        • Awan S.N.
        • Roy N.
        Acoustic prediction of voice type in adult females with functional dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 268-282
        • Awan S.N.
        • Lawson L.
        The effect of anchor modality on the reliability of vocal severity ratings.
        J Voice. 2009; 23: 341-352
        • Awan S.N.
        • Roy N.
        Outcomes measurement in voice disorders: an acoustic index of dysphonia severity.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009; 52: 482-499
      1. 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

        • Colton R.H.
        • Casper J.K.
        Understanding Voice Problems: A Physiological Perspective for Diagnosis and Treatment.
        Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD1996
      2. Hillenbrand J. Getting started with Alvin2. 2005. Available at:http://homepages.wmich.edu/∼hillenbr/. Accessed January 30, 2010.

        • Minitab
        Minitab Statistical Software, Release 14 [Computer Software].
        Minitab Inc, State College, PA2005
        • Sofranko J.L.
        • Prosek R.A.
        The effect of experience on classification of voice quality.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 299-303