Summary
Background
Aims
Method
Results
Conclusions
Key Words
INTRODUCTION
The role of auditory perception in voice production
The effects of voice production on auditory perception
Measurement of auditory perception
Pitch perception and voice quality
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ethical approval
Participants
Sample Means (SD) | Sample Medians | Sample Range | Cut-off Values (Ref.) & max. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SIVD | 0.14 (0.46) | 0 | 0-3 | 5 35 , max = 12 |
VHI-10 | 3.51 (3.53) | 3 | 0-15 | 7.5 37 , max = 40 |
Auditory perceptual severity ratings score | 5.02 (3.16) | 4.50 | 0.25-15.75 | NA, (max = 100) |
HNR | 24.05 (3.13) | 24.25 | 16.2-31.2 | 20 38 , max = NA |
Pitch discrimination tasks
Drinnan M. Newcastle Assessment of Pitch Discrimination: User Manual 2012 Available at:http://drinnan.net/Site/NeAP_files/Newcastle%20Assessment%20of%20Pitch%20Discrimination%202012-07-11_2.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2018
Voice recordings
Adobe Systems Inc. Adobe Audition CC 2018 Available at:https://www.adobe.com/au/products/audition.html?sdid=V6NZKW5P&mv=search&ef_id=WjoC_gAAAHySFHNG:20180516063911:s. Accessed May 28, 2018
Acoustic voice analysis
Frequency-based acoustic measurements
Spectral-based measurements
Hillenbrand JM. SpeechTool. 2002. Available from: https://homepages.wmich.edu/~hillenbr/. Accessed May 24, 2018.
Auditory perceptual voice analyses
Madill C, Corcoran S, So T. Bridge2Practice.com 2019 [1:] Available at: https://bridge2practice.com/. Accessed August 8, 2019
Statistical analysis
RESULTS
Reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of the NeAP

Pitch discrimination accuracy
Pitch discrimination accuracy in musically trained and non-trained groups

Pitch discrimination accuracy in instrumentalist and vocalist groups
Acoustic voice characteristics
Tasks | Acoustic Measures | Whole Sample (n = 114) | Musical Trained Group (n = 58) | Non-Musical Trained Group (n = 56) | P-values and Cohen's d | Normative Data (Ref.) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rainbow passage | F0 (Hz) | 201.34 (19.72) | 200.26 (14.99) | 202.45 (23.74) | 0.56; 0.12 | 171-275 2 |
CPPS (dB) | 4.30 (0.54) | 4.34 (0.52) | 4.26 (0.56) | 0.42; 0.15 | >4.04 69 | |
CSID | -0.83 (18.89) | 0.51 (10.12) | -2.21 (24.96) | 0.45; 0.18 | <19.09 62 | |
Intensity (dB) | 39.13 (3.57) | 38.95 (3.80) | 39.32 (3.33) | 0.58; 0.10 | 68.15 2 | |
3rd CAPE-V phrase | F0 (Hz) | 201.61 (19.26) | 200.55 (15.65) | 202.71 (22.48) | 0.55; 0.12 | 171-275 2 |
CPPS (dB) | 5.67 (0.90) | 5.70 (0.73) | 5.64 (1.06) | 0.75; 0.06 | NA | |
CSID | -15.40 (9.13) | -17.33 (8.12) | -13.41 (9.74) | 0.02*; 0.44 | NA | |
Intensity (dB) | 42.18 (3.73) | 42.08 (3.92) | 42.48 (3.54) | 0.78; 0.05 | NA | |
/a/ vowel | F0SD (Hz) | 1.43 (0.46) | 1.38 (0.42) | 1.47 (0.50) | 0.31; 0.19 | 20-29y: 3.8 70 30-40y: 2.5 71 40-50y: 2.8 71 60-69y: 4.3 70 |
HNR (dB) | 24.05 (3.13) | 24.48 (2.89) | 23.61 (3.32) | 0.13; 0.28 | >20 38 | |
CPPS (dB) | 8.30 (1.94) | 8.42 (2.41) | 8.17 (1.30) | 0.48; 0.15 | >6.12 69 | |
CSID | -9,05 (8.79) | -11.02 (7.97) | -7.00 (9.20) | 0.01*; 0.47 | NA | |
Intensity (dB) | 43.50 (5.48) | 44.03 (5.84) | 42.94 (5.06) | 0.29; 0.20 | NA |
Musically trained and non-trained groups
Instrumentalist and vocalist groups
Tasks | Acoustic Measures | Instrumentalist Group (n = 48) | Vocalist Group (n = 10) | P-values and Cohen's d | Normative Data |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rainbow passage | F0 (Hz) | 201.11 (14.07) | 196.19 (19.18) | 0.35; 0.25 | 171-275 2 |
CPPS (dB) | 4.36 (0.53) | 4.27 (0.50) | 0.63; 0.13 | >4.04 69 | |
CSID | 0.66 (10.36) | -0.24 (9.34) | 0.80; 0.07 | <19.09 62 | |
Intensity (dB) | 39.30 (3.74) | 37.31 (3.90) | 0.13; 0.41 | 68.15 2 | |
3rd CAPE-V phrase | F0 (Hz) | 201.51 (13.97) | 195.94 (22.43) | 0.31; 0.27 | 171-275 2 |
CPPS (dB) | 5.67 (0.71) | 5.81 (0.82) | 0.59; 0.14 | NA | |
CSID | -17.11 (8.12) | -18.39 (8.47) | 0.65; 0.12 | NA | |
Intensity (dB) | 42.39 (3.68) | 40.62 (4.89) | 0.20; 0.35 | NA | |
/a/ vowel | F0SD (Hz) | 1.43 (0.42) | 1.14 (0.36) | 0.05*; 0.55 | NA |
HNR (dB) | 24.47 (2.81) | 24.54 (3.44) | 0.95; 0.02 | >20dB 38 | |
CPPS (dB) | 8.53 (2.50) | 7.93 (1.95) | 0.48; 0.19 | >6.12 69 | |
CSID | -10.99 (7.39) | -11.13 (10.82) | 0.96; 0.01 | NA | |
Intensity (dB) | 42.34 (6.65) | 43.50 (5.48) | 0.32; 0.27 | NA |
Relationships between pitch discrimination accuracy and acoustic voice measures
Tasks | Acoustic Measures | Whole Sample (n = 114) | Musical Trained Group (n = 58) | Non-Musical Trained Group (n = 56) | Instrumen-talists (n = 48) | Vocalists (n = 10) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rainbow passage | F0 (Hz) | -0.10 | 0.11 | -0.19 | 0.12 | 0.35 |
CPPS (dB) | -0.08 | 0.13 | -0.33* | 0.12 | 0.38 | |
CSID | 0.10 | -0.17 | 0.15 | -0.20 | 0.21 | |
Intensity (dB) | -0.11 | 0.14 | -0.32 | 0.17 | 0.46 | |
3rd CAPE-V phrase | F0 (Hz) | -0.20 | -0.09 | -0.26 | -0.11 | 0.16 |
CPPS (dB) | 0.03 | 0.16 | -0.06 | 0.14 | 0.30 | |
CSID | -0.11 | -0.13 | 0.09 | -0.09 | -0.51 | |
Intensity (dB) | -0.06 | 0.15 | -0.24 | 0.19 | 0.30 | |
/a/ vowel | F0SD (Hz) | -0.18 | -0.37* | 0.01 | -0.39* | 0.29 |
HNR (dB) | -0.07 | 0.02 | -0.29 | 0.02 | -0.05 | |
CPPS (dB) | 0.05 | -0.06 | 0.13 | -0.05 | 0.11 | |
CSID | -0.18 | -0.10 | -0.08 | -0.15 | 0.24 | |
Intensity (dB) | -0.02 | 0.04 | -0.20 | 0.04 | 0.36 |
Within group relationships for the musically trained and untrained speakers

Within group relationships for the instrumentalist and vocalist groups
DISCUSSION
Validity of NeAP as a pitch discrimination testing tool
Pitch discrimination accuracy and voice characteristics
Pitch perception and voice quality in musically trained and untrained speakers
Pitch perception and voice quality in instrumentalists and vocalists
Implications for theoretical models of perception and production
CONCLUSION
Author contribution statements
Competing interests
Acknowledgments
APPENDIX 1. Reference and Comparison Tones Used in the Default NeAP PD Task
Trial | Frequency of Tones (Hz) | |
---|---|---|
Reference Tone | Comparison Tone | |
1 | B2 (123.47) | C3 (130.81) |
2 | C3 (130.81) | D3 (146.83) |
3 | C3 (130.81) | C#3 (138.59) |
4 | C3 (130.81) | C3.5 (134.64) |
5 | C3 (130.81) | C3.3 (133.1) |
6 | D3 (146.83) | D3.5 (151.13) |
7 | E3 (164.81) | F3 (174.61) |
8 | E3 (164.81) | E3.5 (169.64) |
9 | F3 (174.61) | F#3 (185.00) |
10 | F3 (174.61) | F3.5 (179.73) |
11 | F3 (174.61) | F3.3 (177.66) |
12 | G3 (196.00) | G#3 (207.65) |
13 | G3 (196.00) | G3.5 (201.74) |
14 | A3 (220.00) | B3 (246.94) |
15 | A3 (220.00) | A#3 (233.08) |
16 | A3 (220.00) | A3.5 (226.45) |
17 | B3 (246.94) | B3.5 (254.18) |
18 | C4 (261.63) | D4 (293.66) |
19 | D4 (293.66) | D#4 (311.13) |
20 | D4 (293.66) | D4.5 (302.26) |
References
- Relationships between vocal pitch perception and production: a developmental perspective.Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 1-10
- Understanding Voice Problems: A Physiological Perspective for Diagnosis and Treatment.Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa2011
- Singing without hearing: a comparative study of children and adults singing a familiar tune.Psychomusicology. 2017; 27: 122-131
- Mindful Voice - Motor learning principles and voice pedagogy: theory and practice.J Singing. 2010; 66: 457-468
- Effect of training and level of external auditory feedback on the singing voice: pitch inaccuracy.J Voice. 2017; 31 (122.e9-.e16)
- Evidence for auditory-motor impairment in individuals with hyperfunctional voice disorders.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60: 1545-1550
- Auditory-motor mapping for pitch control in singers and nonsingers.Exp Brain Res. 2008; 190: 279-287
- Voice F0 responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback: a preliminary study.J Voice. 1997; 11: 202-211
- Contributions of auditory and somatosensory feedback to vocal motor control.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 2039-2053
- Pitch discrimination and pitch matching abilities of adults who sing inaccurately.J Voice. 2005; 19: 431-439
- Pitch discrimination: are professional musicians better than non-musicians?.J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2001; 12: 125-143
- Voice quality and speech intelligibility among deaf children.Am Ann Deaf. 1983; 128: 12-19
- Physiological assessment of speech and voice production of adults with hearing loss.J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 510-521
- The relationship between pitch discrimination and vocal production: comparison of vocal and instrumental musicians.J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 125: 328-338
- Pitch-matching accuracy in trained singers and untrained individuals: the impact of musical interference and noise.J Voice. 2011; 25: 173-180
- Hearing of note: an electrophysiologic and psychoacoustic comparison of pitch discrimination between vocal and instrumental musicians.Psychophysiology. 2008; 45: 994-1007
- Pitch discrimination and pitch matching abilities of adults who sing inaccurately.J Voice. 2005; 19: 431-439
- Impaired auditory discrimination and auditory-motor integration in hyperfunctional voice disorders.Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 1-11
- Evidence for auditory-motor impairment in individuals with hyperfunctional voice disorders.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60: 1545-1550
- Control of fundamental frequency in dysphonic patients during phonation and speech.J Voice. 2019; 33: 851-859
- Correlation between voice and auditory processing.J Voice. 2018; 32: 771.e25-771.e36
- Cortical networks for speech motor control in unilateral vocal fold paralysis.Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: 2125-2130
- Vocal motor control and central auditory impairments in unilateral vocal fold paralysis: motor and auditory impairments in UVFP.Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: 2112-2117
- The linked dual representation model of vocal perception and production.Frontiers Psychol. 2013; 4: 1-12
- Pitch discrimination and tonal memory abilities in adult voice patients.J Speech Hear Res. 1967; 10: 811-815
- Vocal pitch discrimination in children with and without vocal fold nodules.Appl Sci (Basel). 2019; 9: 1-13
- Same or different pitch? Effects of musical expertise, pitch difference, and auditory task on the pitch discrimination ability of musicians and non-musicians.Exp Brain Res. 2019; 238: 247-258
- Does fundamental-frequency discrimination measure virtual pitch discrimination?.J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128: 1930-1942
- Vocal pitch discrimination in the motor system.Brain Lang. 2011; 118: 9-14
- Acoustic waveform perturbations and voice disorders.J Voice. 1992; 6: 115-126
- Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a meta-analysis.J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126: 2619-2634
- Acoustic and perceptual indicators of normal and pathological voice.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2003; 55: 102-114
- The effect of vocal fry on pitch perception.in: Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process; 2016. IEEE, Shanghai, China2016: 5260-5264
- Factors affecting pitch discrimination performance in a cohort of extensively phenotyped healthy volunteers.Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 1-9
- Screening index for voice disorder (SIVD): development and validation.J Voice. 2013; 27: 195-200
- Development and validation of the Voice Handicap Index-10.Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1549-1556
- Efficiency and cutoff values of self-assessment instruments on the impact of a voice problem.J Voice. 2015; 30 (506.e9-.e18)
- The vocal clarity of female speech-language pathology students: an exploratory study.J Voice. 2012; 26: 63-68
Drinnan M. Newcastle Assessment of Pitch Discrimination: User Manual 2012 Available at:http://drinnan.net/Site/NeAP_files/Newcastle%20Assessment%20of%20Pitch%20Discrimination%202012-07-11_2.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2018
Adobe Systems Inc. Adobe Audition CC 2018 Available at:https://www.adobe.com/au/products/audition.html?sdid=V6NZKW5P&mv=search&ef_id=WjoC_gAAAHySFHNG:20180516063911:s. Accessed May 28, 2018
- Voice and Articulation Drillbook.2nd ed. Harper & Row, New York1960
- Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132
- Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice: sustained vowels versus continuous speech.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001; 44: 327-339
- The effect of segment selection on acoustic analysis.J Voice. 2012; 26: 1-7
- Updating signal typing in voice: addition of type 4 signals.J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 127: 3710-3716
- The effect of CAPE-V sentences on cepstral/spectral acoustic measures in dysphonic speakers.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015; 67: 15-20
- Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral cepstral-based acoustic index: Comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V.Clin Linguist Phon. 2010; 24: 742-758
- Validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID) as a screening tool for voice disorders: development of clinical cutoff scores.J Voice. 2016; 30: 130-144
Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. 6.0.25 ed2017.
- Clinical measurement of speech and voice.2nd ed. Singular Thomson Learning, San Diego2000
- Harmonics-to-noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness.J Acoust Soc Am. 1982; 71: 1544-1550
- Improvements in estimating the harmonics-to-noise ratio of the voice.J Voice. 1994; 8: 255-262
- Integrating voice evaluation: correlation between acoustic and audio-perceptual measures.J Voice. 2015; 29 (390.E1-.e7)
- Mean fundamental frequency in connected speech and sustained vowel with and without a sentence-frame.Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2020; 45: 91-96
- Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: dysphonic voices and continuous speech.J Speech Hear Res. 1996; 39: 311-321
- A comparison of cepstral peak prominence measures from two acoustic analysis programs.J Voice. 2017; 31 (387 e1- e10)
- Predicting voice disorder status from smoothed measures of Cepstral Peak Prominence using Praat and Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV).J Voice. 2017; 31: 557-566
- Objective dysphonia measures in the program praat: smoothed cepstral peak prominence and acoustic voice quality index.J Voice. 2015; 29: 35-43
- Quantifying the Cepstral Peak Prominence, a measure of dysphonia.J Voice. 2014; 28: 783-788
Hillenbrand JM. SpeechTool. 2002. Available from: https://homepages.wmich.edu/~hillenbr/. Accessed May 24, 2018.
- Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice.3.4.2 ed. KayPENTAX, Montvale, NJ2011
- Validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID) as a screening tool for voice disorders: development of clinical cutoff scores.J Voice. 2016; 30: 130-144
- Spectral- and cepstral-based acoustic features of dysphonic, strained voice quality.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012; 121: 539-548
Madill C, Corcoran S, So T. Bridge2Practice.com 2019 [1:] Available at: https://bridge2practice.com/. Accessed August 8, 2019
- Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132
- A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research.J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-163
- IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows.24.0 ed. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY2016
- Index for rating diagnostic tests.Cancer. 1950; 3: 32-35
- Comparison of cepstral peak prominence measures using the ADSV, SpeechTool, and VoiceSauce acoustic analysis programs in vocally healthy female speakers.Acoustics Australia. 2018; 46: 215-226
- Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics of nonsmoking female adults.J Speech Hear Res. 1981; 24: 437-441
- Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics of middle-aged females.Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1967; 19: 167-172
- Pitch discrimination: are professional musicians better than non-musicians?.J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2001; 12: 125-144
- The effect of superior auditory skills on vocal accuracy.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113: 1102-1108
- Effects of fundamental frequency, vocal intensity, sample duration, and vowel context in cepstral and spectral measures of dysphonic voices.J. Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 1326-1339
- Auditory feedback control of vocal intensity during speech and sustained-vowel production.J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 146: 3052
- The effect of clinician feedback type on the acquisition of a vocal siren.Folia Phoniatrica Et Logopaedica. 2016; 67: 57-67
- Show and tell: video modeling and instruction without feedback improves performance but is not sufficient for retention of a complex voice motor skill.J Voice. 2019; 33: 239-249
- The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning.Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 24: 849-878
- Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding).Psychol Res. 2009; 73: 512-526
Article info
Publication history
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy