Advertisement

Perceptual Voice Qualities Database (PVQD): Database Characteristics

Published:October 19, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.10.001

      Summary

      Objectives

      To develop a perceptual voice quality database for educational and research purposes.

      Study design

      Development of a database.

      Methods

      A total of 296 high quality audio file recordings consisting of sustained /a/ and /i/ vowels and sentences from Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice were made in clinical environments. Nineteen experienced voice clinicians rated the audio samples using voice qualities from the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (without visual anchors) and GRBAS scales.

      Results

      The database includes samples of a wide range of voice quality severities across a wide range of speaker age and sex. Both inter- and intrarater reliabilities were established to be good for the database overall.

      Conclusions

      The database is housed in the Mendeley Data online repository and is free for public use.

      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

      1. (ASHA) AS-L-HA. Preferred Practice Patterns for the Profession of Speech-Language Pathology. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. doi:10.1044/policy.PP2004-00191.

        • Gerratt BR
        • Kreiman J
        • Antonanzas-Barroso N
        • et al.
        Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36: 14-20https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.14
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Kempster GB
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.21
        • Nagle KF
        Emerging scientist: challenges to CAPE-V as a standard.
        Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2016; 1: 47-53
        • Eadie TL
        • Van Boven L
        • Stubbs K
        • et al.
        The effect of musical background on judgments of dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 93-101
        • Bele IV
        Reliability in perceptual analysis of voice quality.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 555-573https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.008
        • Helou LB
        • Solomon NP
        • Henry LR
        • et al.
        The role of listener experience on Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) ratings of postthyroidectomy voice.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 19: 248-258
        • Sofranko JL
        • Prosek RA
        The effect of levels and types of experience on judgment of synthesized voice quality.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 24-35https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.06.001
      2. Sofranko JL. The effect of experience and the relationship among subjective and objective measures of voice quality. Published online 2012. Available at:https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/15247. Accessed May 7, 2017.

        • Ghio A
        • Dufour S
        • Wengler A
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of dysphonic voices: can a training protocol lead to the development of perceptual categories?.
        J Voice. 2015; 29: 304-311https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.07.006
        • Eadie TL
        • Baylor CR
        The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners’ judgments of dysphonic voice.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 527-544https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.08.007
        • Eadie TL
        • Kapsner-Smith M
        The effect of listener experience and anchors on judgments of dysphonia.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011; 54: 430-447https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0205)
        • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary
        Voice Disorders Database (Version 1.03 Cd-Rom).
        Voice Disorders Database (Version 1.03 Cd-Rom). Kay Elemetrics Corporation, Lincoln Park, NJ1994
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        Acoustic prediction of voice type in women with functional dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 268-282https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.03.005
      3. TalkBank. Voice Disorders Database. Available at: http://www.talkbank.org/. Accessed July 13, 2017.

      4. University of Oxford. British National Corpus. Available at:http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. Accessed July 13, 2017.

      5. Putzer M, Barry WJ. Saarbruecken voice database. Published May 23, 2007. Available at:http://www.stimmdatenbank.coli.uni-saarland.de/help_en.php4. Accessed July 13, 2017.

      6. Connor N. Voice disorders: simulations & games. Available at:https://csd.wisc.edu/slpgames/index.html. Accessed June 14, 2017.

      7. Walden P. Perceptual voice qualities database (PVQD). 2020;3. doi:https://doi.org/10.17632/9dz247gnyb.3.

        • Kempster G
        CAPE-V: development and future direction.
        SIG 3 Perspect Voice Voice Disord. 2007; 17: 11-13https://doi.org/10.1044/vvd17.2.11
      8. Mendeley Ltd. Mendeley Data. Available at: https://data.mendeley.com/. Accessed August 18, 2020.

        • Hirano M.
        Clinical Examination of Voice.
        Springer-Verlag, New York1981
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        Perceptual assessment of voice quality: past, present, and future.
        Perspect Voice Voice Disord. 2010; 20: 62https://doi.org/10.1044/vvd20.2.62
      9. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Special Interest Group 3, Voice and Upper Airway Disorders. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Available at: https://www.asha.org/SIG/03/. Accessed August 14, 2020.

      10. University of Iowa. Voiceserve. Published nd. Available at: https://list.healthcare.uiowa.edu/read/all_forums/?forum=. Accessed August 14, 2020.

      11. Qualtrics. Qualtrics Survey Software. Available at: https://www.qualtrics.com/uk/. Accessed August 14, 2020.

      12. Soundcloud Limited. SoundCloud. Available at:https://soundcloud.com/. Accessed August 14, 2020.

        • Shrout PE
        • Fleiss JL
        Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
        Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-428https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
        • Awan SN
        • Lawson LL
        The effect of anchor modality on the reliability of vocal severity ratings.
        J Voice. 2009; 23: 341-352https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.10.006