Summary
Introduction
Computer analysis of voice recordings is an integral part of the evaluation and management
of voice disorders. In many practices, voice samples are taken in rooms that are not
sound attenuated and/or sound-proofed; further, the technology used is rarely consistent.
This will likely affect the recordings, and therefore, their analyses.
Objectives
The objective of this study is to compare various acoustic outcome measures taken
from samples recorded in a sound-proofed booth to those recorded in more common clinic
environments. Further, the effects from six different commonly used microphones will
be compared.
Methods
Thirty-six speakers were recorded while reading a text and producing sustained vowels
in a controlled acoustic environment. The collected samples were reproduced by a Head
and Torso Simulator and recorded in three clinical rooms and in a sound booth using
six different microphones. Newer measures (eg, Pitch Strength, cepstral peak prominence,
Acoustic Voice Quality Index), as well as more traditional measures (eg Jitter, Shimmer,
harmonics-to-noise ratio and Spectrum Tilt), were calculated from the samples collected
with each microphone and within each room.
Results
The measures which are more robust to room acoustic differences, background noise,
and microphone quality include Jitter and smooth cepstral peak prominence, followed
by Shimmer, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, harmonics-to-noise ratio, Pitch Strength,
and Spectrum Tilt.
Conclusions
The effect of room acoustics and background noise on voice parameters appears to be
stronger than the type of microphone used for the recording. Consequently, an appropriate
acoustical clinical space may be more important than the quality of the microphone.
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
Aronson AE, Bless DM. “Clinical voice disorders.” New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers.
Boone DR, McFarlane SC, Von Berg SL, et al. “The voice and voice therapy.” Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Quick screen for voice and supplementary documents for identifying pediatric voice disorders.Lang Speech Hear Ser. 2004; 35: 308-319
- The prevalence of ear, nose and throat problems in the community: results from a national cross-sectional postal survey in Scotland.Fam Pract. 2005; 22: 227-233
- Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors, and occupational impact.Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1988-1995
Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, et al. Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American speech-language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018:1–19.
- Some technical considerations in voice perturbation measurements.J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30: 252-260
- Cepstral peak sensitivity: a theoretic analysis and comparison of several implementations.J Voice. 2015; 29: 670-681
- Acoustic analyses of sustained and running voices from patients with laryngeal pathologies.J Voice. 2008; 22: 1-9
- Multiparametric evaluation of dysphonic severity.J Voice. 2006; 20: 380-390
- Cepstral Peak Prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333
- The acoustic voice quality index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders.J Commun Disord. 2010; 43: 161-174
- Pitch strength of normal and dysphonic voices.J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 131: 2261-2269
- Pitch Strength as an outcome measure for treatment of dysphonia.J Voice. 2017; 31: 691-696
- Comparison of Pitch Strength with perceptual and other acoustic metric outcome measures following medialization laryngoplasty.J Voice. 2018; ([Advance online publication])
- Impact of four nonclinical speaking environments on a child's fundamental frequency and voice level: a preliminary case study.Lang Speech Hear Ser. 2012; 43: 253-263
- Effects of speech style, room acoustics, and vocal fatigue on vocal effort.J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 139: 2870-2879
- Effects of voice style, noise level, and acoustic feedback on objective and subjective voice evaluations.J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 138: EL498-EL503
- Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art.Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015; 42: 183-188
- Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006; 58: 274-288
- Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements.J Voice. 2005; 19: 15-28
- Evaluation of smartphone sound measurement applications.J Acoust Soc Am. 2014; 135: EL186-EL192
- Effects of microphone type on acoustic measures of voice.J Voice. 2001; 15: 331-343
- Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements.J Voice. 2005; 19: 176-186
- Guidelines for selecting microphones for human voice production research.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 19: 356-368
- “The Rainbow Passage.In: Voice and articulation drillbook. Harper & Row, New York1960: 127
- Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer.Glot Int. 2001; 5: 341-347
- The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 271: 1609-1619
- Harmonics-to-noise ratio: an index of vocal aging.J Voice. 2002; 16: 480-487
- Jitter, Shimmer and HNR classification within gender, tones and vowels in healthy voices.Procedia Technology. 2014; 16: 1228-1237
- Workshop on acoustic voice analysis.National Center for Voice and Speech, Denver, CO1995
- Acoustics—measurement of room acoustic parameters. Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms.International Organization for Standardization, Genève2008
- R: A language and environment for statistical computing.R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2011 (Available at:) (Accessed September 23, 2016)
- lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.R package version 1.1–7. 2014. Available at:?>.(Accessed September 23, 2016)
- lmerTest: tests in linear mixed-effects models.(Accessed September 23, 2016)
- Multcomp: simultaneous inference in general parametric models.(Accessed September 23, 2016)
- An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components.Biometr. Bull. 1946; 2: 110-114
- Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2010
- Uncertainty of measurement – Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2008
- A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS).Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 258: 77-82
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 21, 2018
Accepted:
October 31,
2018
Footnotes
Funding: This research was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DC012315. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
