The ‘VA’ Windows program that we developed in 2011 for analyzing voice quality quantitatively uses zerocross picking to find individual basic pitch periods. It has a simple and user-friendly user interface and high accuracy. This program determines the fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, PPQ, APQ, and signal-to-noise ratio (Ra). It needs only a general-purpose Windows PC, USB audio interface and a microphone. The aim of this study is to improve the version of the VA Windows program in English and to develop a VA smart phone program to allow wider use of objective acoustic analysis.
Sustained vowel /a/ sounds from 40 subjects without evident vocal problems, and 40 subjects with slight hoarseness, were examined. We compared the analyzed data with data from other software (MDVP and Praat). For a comparison between VA for Windows and VA for a smart phone, sustained vowel /a/ sounds from six subjects without hoarseness were recorded with each system simultaneously.
The normal voice and slightly hoarse voice data analyzed with VA showed a high correlation with most parameters from both MDVP and Praat. There was a strong correlation between the Windows and smart phone versions of VA in terms of the fundamental frequency and Ra.
The results showed that the VA software was not inferior to the other acoustic analysis software tested. The simple and easy to use smart phone version may facilitate our goal of creating an objective, widely available method to evaluate hoarseness.
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
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- A comparison of voice quality ratings made by Japanese and American listeners using the GRBAS scale.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2003; 55: 147-157
- Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009; 61: 49-56
- GRBAS and Cape-V scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times.J Voice. 2012; 26: 812.e17-812.e22
- New VA software program quantitatively analyzes voice quality.Pract Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 104: 297-302
- Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement.J Speech Hear Res. 1996; 39: 126-134
- Application of some acoustic measures for the evaluation of laryngeal dysfunction.Stud Phonol. 1973; VII: 17-23
- Some technical considerations in voice perturbation measurements.J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30: 252-260
- Harmonics-to-noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness.J Speech Hear Res. 1984; 27: 1544-1550
- Computer analysis of hoarseness.Acta Otolaryngol. 1980; 89: 547-554
- Diagnosis of voice disorders.Japan Med Assoc J. 2011; 54: 248-253
- Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice. Clinical Examination of Voice (Disorders of Human Communication).Springer-Verlag, 1981: 81-84
- Comparison of results in two acoustic analysis programs: Praat and MDVP.Turk J Med Sci. 2011; 41: 835-841
- Normalized noise energy as an acoustic measure to evaluate pathologic voice.J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 80: 1329-1334
Published online: May 22, 2018
Accepted: January 30, 2018
© 2018 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.