Research Article| Volume 37, ISSUE 2, P173-177, March 2023

Download started.


The Formant Bandwidth as a Measure of Vowel Intelligibility in Dysphonic Speech

Published:October 31, 2020DOI:



      The current paper examined the impact of dysphonia on the bandwidth of the first two formants of vowels, and the relationship between the formant bandwidth and vowel intelligibility.


      Speaker participants of the study were 10 adult females with healthy voice and 10 adult females with dysphonic voice. Eleven vowels in American English were recorded in /h/-vowel-/d/ format. The vowels were presented to 10 native speakers of American English with normal hearing, who were asked to select a vowel they heard from a list of /h/-vowel-/d/ words. The vowels were acoustically analyzed to measure the bandwidth of the first and second formants (B1 and B2). Separate Wilcoxon rank sum tests were conducted for each vowel for normal and dysphonic speech because the differences in B1 and B2 were found to not be normally distributed. Spearman correlation tests were conducted to evaluate the association between the difference in formant bandwidths and vowel intelligibility between the healthy and dysphonic speakers.


      B1 was significantly greater in dysphonic vowels for seven of the eleven vowels, and lesser for only one of the vowels. There was no statistically significant difference in B2 between the normal and dysphonic vowels, except for the vowel /i/. The difference in B1 between normal and dysphonic vowels strongly predicted the intelligibility difference.


      Dysphonia significantly affects B1, and the difference in B1 may serve as an acoustic marker for the intelligibility reduction in dysphonic vowels. This acoustic-perceptual relationship should be confirmed by a larger-scale study in the future.

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


        • Evitts PM
        • Starmer H
        • Teets K
        • et al.
        The impact of dysphonic voices on healthy listeners: listener reaction times, speech intelligibility, and listener comprehension.
        American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2016; 25: 561-575
        • Ishikawa K
        • Boyce S
        • Kelchner L
        • et al.
        The effect of background noise on intelligibility of dysphonic speech.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60: 1919-1929
        • Cole RA
        • Yan Y
        • Mak B
        • et al.
        The contribution of consonants versus vowels to word recognition in fluent speech.
        in: 1996 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Conference Proceedings. 2. IEEE, 1996: 853-856
        • Fogerty D
        • Kewley-Port D
        Perceptual contributions of the consonant-vowel boundary to sentence intelligibility.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126: 847-857
        • Kewley-Port D
        • Burkle TZ
        • Lee JH.
        Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 2365-2375
        • Ishikawa K
        • Nudelman C
        • Park S
        • et al.
        Perception and acoustic studies of vowel intelligibility in dysphonic speech.
        J Voice. 2020; (In press)
        • Peterson GE
        • Barney HL
        Control methods used in a study of the vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1952; 24: 175-184
        • Hillenbrand J
        • Getty LA
        • Clark MJ
        • et al.
        Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97: 3099-3111
        • Hirano M
        Clinical examination of voice.
        Disorders of Human Communication. 1981; 5: 1-99
        • Bless D
        Videostroboscopic evaluation of the larynx.
        ENTJ. 1987; 66: 289
        • Klatt D
        Prediction of perceived phonetic distance from critical-band spectra: a first step.
        in: ICASSP’82. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. 7. IEEE, 1982: 1278-1281
        • Rosner BS
        • Pickering JB
        Vowel Perception and Production.
        Oxford University Press, 1994
        • De Cheveigné A
        Formant bandwidth affects the identification of competing vowels.
        ICPhS. 1999; : 2093-2096
        • Park H
        Time course of the first formant bandwidth.
        in: Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 28. 2002: 213-224
        • Stevens KN
        Acoustic Phonetics. 30. MIT press, 2000
        • Stevens KN
        • House AS
        Perturbation of vowel articulations by consonantal context: an acoustical study.
        Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1963; 6: 111-128
        • Moon SJ
        • Lindblom B
        Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 40-55
        • Jin SH
        • Liu C
        The vowel inherent spectral change of English vowels spoken by native and non-native speakers.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 133: EL363-EL369
      1. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.36. 2017. Available at:

        • Stevens KN
        • Libermann AM
        • Studdert-Kennedy M
        • et al.
        Crosslanguage study of vowel perception.
        Lang Speech. 1969; 12: 1-23
        • Vorperian HK
        Static measurements of vowel formant frequencies and bandwidths: a review.
        J Commun Disord. 2018; 74: 74-97