Summary
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy of Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) measures obtained
from voice recordings simultaneously using oral and smartphone microphones in a sound-proof
room, and to compare them with AVQIs obtained from the same smartphone voice recordings
with added ambient noise.
Methods
A study group of 183 subjects with normal voices (n = 86) and various voice disorders
(n = 97) was asked to read aloud a standard text and sustain the vowel /a/. The controlled
ambient noise averaged at 29.61 dB SPL was added digitally to the smartphone voice
recordings. Repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVA) with Greenhouse-Geiser
correction was used to evaluate AVQI changes within subjects. To evaluate the level
of agreement between AVQI measurements obtained from different voice recordings Bland–Altman
plots were used.
Results
Repeated measures ANOVA showed that differences among AVQI results obtained from voice
recordings done with oral studio microphone, recordings done with a smartphone microphone,
and recordings done with a smartphone microphone with added ambient noise were not
statistically significant (P = 0.07). No significant systemic differences and acceptable level of random errors
in AVQI measurements of voice recordings made with oral and smartphone microphones
(including added noise) were revealed.
Conclusion
The AVQI measures obtained from smartphone microphones voice recordings with experimentally
added ambient noise revealed an acceptable agreement with results of oral microphone
recordings, thus suggesting the suitability of smartphone microphone recordings performed
even in the presence of acceptable ambient noise for estimation of AVQI.
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
- Evaluating iPhone recordings for acoustic voice assessment.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2012; 64: 122-130
- Evaluation of smartphone sound measurement applications.J Acoust Soc Am. 2014; 135 (2014): EL186
- Comparability of modern recording devices for speech analysis: smartphone, landline, laptop, and hard disc recorder.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014; 66: 244-250
- An iOS-based cepstral peak prominence application: feasibility for patient practice of resonant voice.J Voice. 2017; 31 (2017 Jan): 131.e9-131.e16
- Reliability of OperaVOX against Multidimensional Voice Program (MDVP).Clin Otolaryngol. 2015 Feb; 40: 22-28
- Smartphones offer new opportunities in clinical voice research.J Voice. 2017; 31: 111.e1-111.e7
- Mobile Communication Devices, Ambient Noise, and Acoustic Voice Measures.J Voice. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.07.023
- Maximal Ambient Noise Levels and Type of Voice Material Required for Valid Use of Smartphones in Clinical Voice Research.J Voice. 2017; 31 (Mar248.e11-248.e23)
- Reliability of clinical voice parameters captured with smartphones - measurements of added noise and spectral tilt.in: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH. 2019https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2910
- Exploring the feasibility of smart phone microphone for measurement of acoustic voice parameters and voice pathology screening.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 272: 3391-3399
- Influence of smartphones and software on acoustic voice measures.Int J Telerehabilitation. 2016; 8: 9-14
- Exploring the feasibility of the combination of acoustic voice quality index and glottal function index for voice pathology screening.Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2019; 276: 1737-1745
- Evaluation of acoustic analyses of voice in nonoptimized conditions.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020; 13 (NovEpub ahead of print): 1-9
- Real-time acoustic voice analysis using a handheld device running android operating system.J Voice. 2019; 34 (2020 Nov): 823-829
- The current state and future possibilities of mobile phone “Voice Analyser” applications, in relation to otorhinolaryngology.J Voice. 2019; 34 (2020 Jul): 527-532
- Reproducibility of voice parameters: the effect of room acoustics and microphones.J Voice. 2018; (j.jvoice.2018.10.016)
- Mobile digital recording: adequacy of the irig and ios device for acoustic and perceptual analysis of normal voice.J Voice. 2017; 31 (Mar): 236-242
- Assessing voice health using smartphones: bias and random error of acoustic voice parameters captured by different smartphone types.Int J Language and Communication Disorders. 2019; 54: 292-305
- Assessment of voice quality: Current state-of-the-art.Auris Nasus Larynx. 2014; 42: 183-188
- Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.J Voice. 2010; 24: 540-555
- Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity.J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012; 24: 107-112
- The Influence of Gender and Age on the Acoustic Voice Quality Index and Dysphonia Severity Index: A Normative Study.J Voice. 2019; 33: 340-345
- A case of specificity: how does the acoustic voice quality index perform in normophonic subjects?.Appl Sci. 2019; 9 (June): 2527
- The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: Toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders.J Commun Disord. 2010; 43: 161-174
- The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages.Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2014; 271: 1609-1619
- Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Japanese Language.J Voice. 2017; 31 (260.e1-260.e9)
- Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Lithuanian Language.J Voice. 2017; 31: 257.e1-257.e11
- Effects of injection laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid in patients with vocal fold paralysis.Osong Public Heal Res Perspect. 2018; 9: 354-361
- The acoustic voice quality index version 02.02 in the Finnish-speaking population.Logop Phoniatr Vocology. 2020; 45: 49-56
- The effect of supraclavicular Radiotherapy on Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI), spectral amplitude and perturbation values.J Voice. 2020; (Pages 649.e7-649.e132019)
- The usefulness of auditory perceptual assessment and acoustic analysis as a screening test for voice problems.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020; 34: 884-893
- Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements.J Voice. 2005; 19: 15-28
- Objective dysphonia measures in the program praat : smoothed cepstral peak prominence and acoustic voice quality index.J Voice. 2015; 29: 35-43
- Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet. 1986; 327: 307-310
- Woodward W a.Statistical Analysis Quick Reference Guidebook: With SPSS Example. 2007;
- Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research.Educ Res Perspect. 2011; 38: 105-124
- Questionnaire- versus voice-based screening for laryngeal disorders.Expert Syst Appl. 2012; 39: 6254-6262
- Glottal function index questionnaire for screening of pediatric dysphonia.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 123 (06 May): 97-101
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 03, 2021
Accepted:
January 26,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
