Advertisement

The Effect of Mandarin Vowels on Acoustic Analysis: A Prospective Observational Study

  • Min Shu
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Min Shu, Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, China.
    Affiliations
    Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Yi Zhang
    Affiliations
    Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, China
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jack J. Jiang
    Affiliations
    Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, China

    Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
    Search for articles by this author

      Summary

      Objectives

      Although vowels are of interest for acoustic analysis in clinics, there is no consensus regarding the effect of vowel selection on acoustic perturbation parameters. This study aimed to reveal the effects of Mandarin vowels on acoustic measurements.

      Study Design

      A prospective observational study.

      Methods

      This prospective observational study enrolled normal phonation Mandarin speakers at the Otolaryngology Department of the Eye & ENT Hospital affiliated with Fudan University from December 2020 to August 2021. This study recruited 107 normal-voiced Mandarin speakers (59 women and 49 men) with a median age of 26 (22, 33) years old. The objective measures included traditional acoustic parameters (fundamental frequency, harmonic-to-noise ratio, percent jitter, and percent shimmer) and cepstral analysis (smoothed cepstral peak prominence) of six Mandarin vowels (ɑ /a/, o /o/, e /ɤ/, i /i/, u /u/, ü /y/).

      Results

      The acoustic analysis revealed no significant differences in the fundamental frequency among vowels. The low vowel /a/ had the highest values for percent jitter and percent shimmer and the lowest harmonic-to-noise ratio value. The back vowel /u/ had the lowest cepstral measures (P < 0.05).

      Conclusions

      The acoustic analysis significantly varied across the different Mandarin vowels, and these differences must be considered for the effective clinical application of objective evaluations.

      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

        • Fant G.
        The source filter concept in voice production.
        J STL. 1981; 22: 21-37
        • Lin E.
        • Jiang J.
        • Noon S.D.
        • et al.
        Effects of head extension and tongue protrusion on voice perturbation measures.
        J Voice. 2000; 14: 8-16https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(00)80090-9
        • de Krom G.
        Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 985-1000https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3705.985
        • Revis J.
        • Giovanni A.
        • Wuyts F.
        • et al.
        Comparison of different voice samples for perceptual analysis.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1999; 51: 108-116https://doi.org/10.1159/000021485
        • Parsa V.
        • Jamieson D.G.
        Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice: sustained vowels versus continuous speech.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001; 44: 327-339https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/027
        • Maryn Y.
        • Roy N.
        • De Bodt M.
        • et al.
        Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a meta-analysis.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126: 2619-2634https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3224706
        • Maccallum J.K.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Jiang J.J.
        Vowel selection and its effects on perturbation and nonlinear dynamic measures.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2011; 63: 88-97https://doi.org/10.1159/000319786
        • Scherer K.R.
        • Zei B.
        Vocal indicators of affective disorders.
        Psychother Psychosom. 1988; 49: 179-186https://doi.org/10.1159/000288082
      1. Franca M.C.Acoustic comparison of vowel sounds among adult females. J Voice. 2012;26:671.e679-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.11.010

      2. Dehqan A., Scherer R.C.Acoustic analysis of voice: Iranian teachers. J Voice. 2013;27:655.e617-621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.03.003

        • Kitajima K.
        Vocal shimmer in sustained phonation.
        J Pract Otol. 1976; 69: 819-821
        • Glaze L.E.
        • Bless D.M.
        • Susser R.D.
        Acoustic analysis of vowel and loudness differences in children's voice.
        J Voice. 1990; 4 (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80080-3): 37-44
        • Linville S.
        • Korabic E.
        • Rosera M.
        Intraproduction variability in jitter measures from elderly speakers.
        J Voice. 1990; 4: 45-51https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(05)80081-5
        • Higgins M.B.
        • Netsell R.
        • Schulte L.
        Vowel-related differences in laryngeal articulatory and phonatory function.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998; 41: 712-724https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4104.712
      3. Awan S.N., Giovinco A., Owens J. Effects of vocal intensity and vowel type on cepstral analysis of voice. J Voice. 2012;26:670.e615-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.12.001

        • Walton J.H.
        • Orlikoff R.F.
        Speaker race identification from acoustic cues in the vocal signal.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 738-745https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3704.738
        • Andrianopoulos A.V.
        • Darrow K.N.
        • Chen J.
        Multimodal standardization of voice among four multicultural populations: fundamental frequency and spectral characteristics.
        J Voice. 2001; 15: 194-219https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(01)00021-2
        • Ting H.N.
        • Chia S.Y.
        • Kim K.S.
        • et al.
        Vocal fundamental frequency and perturbation measurements of vowels by normal Malaysian Chinese adults.
        J Voice. 2011; 25: e311-e317https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.05.004
        • Milenkovic P.
        Least mean square measures of voice perturbation.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30: 529-538https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3004.529
        • Lowell S.Y.
        • Colton R.H.
        • Kelley R.T.
        • et al.
        Spectral- and cepstral-based measures during continuous speech: capacity to distinguish dysphonia and consistency within a speaker.
        J Voice. 2011; 25: e223-e232https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.06.007
        • Hillenbrand J.
        • Cleveland R.A.
        • Erickson R.L.
        Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 769-778https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3704.769
        • Moers C.
        • Möbius B.
        • Rosanowski F.
        • et al.
        Vowel- and text-based cepstral analysis of chronic hoarseness.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 416-424https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.05.001
        • Murton O.
        • Hillman R.
        • Mehta D.
        Cepstral peak prominence values for clinical voice evaluation.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020; 29: 1596-1607https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00001
      4. Watts C.R., Awan S.N., Maryn Y.A comparison of cepstral peak prominence measures from two acoustic analysis programs. J Voice. 2017;31:387.e381-387.e310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.012

        • Arai T.
        Vocal-tract model with static articulators: lips, teeth, tongue, and more.
        InINTERSPEECH. 2017; : 4028-4029
      5. Ladefoged P., Johnson K. A Course in Phonetics, 6th Edition Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA.

        • Gelfer M.P.
        Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel selection: effects on measures of phonatory stability.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1995; 38: 1189-1198https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3806.1189
        • Chen W.R.
        • Whalen D.H.
        • Tiede M.K.
        A dual mechanism for intrinsic f0.
        J Phon. 2021; 87https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101063
        • Sapir S.
        The intrinsic pitch of vowels: theoretical, physiological, and clinical considerations.
        J Voice. 1989; 3: 44-51https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(89)80121-3
      6. Carson C.K., Ryalls J. A new era in acoustic analysis: use of smartphones and readily accessible software/applications for voice assessment. 2018.

        • Park Y.
        • Stepp C.E.
        The effects of stress type, vowel identity, baseline f(0), and loudness on the relative fundamental frequency of individuals with healthy voices.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 603-610https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.04.004
        • Ferrand C.T.
        Effects of practice with and without knowledge of results on jitter and shimmer levels in normally speaking women.
        J Voice. 1995; 9: 419-423https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(05)80204-8
        • Johnson K.
        • Ladefoged P.
        • Lindau M.
        Individual differences in vowel production.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1993; 94: 701-714https://doi.org/10.1121/1.406887
        • Awan S.N.
        • Roy N.
        • Dromey C.
        Estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech: application of a multi-parameter spectral/cepstral model.
        Clin Linguist Phon. 2009; 23: 825-841https://doi.org/10.3109/02699200903242988
        • Orlikoff R.F.
        • Baken R.J.
        Consideration of the relationship between the fundamental frequency of phonation and vocal jitter.
        Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1990; 42: 31-40https://doi.org/10.1159/000266017
        • Diercks G.R.
        • Ojha S.
        • Infusino S.
        • et al.
        Consistency of voice frequency and perturbation measures in children using cepstral analyses: a movement toward increased recording stability.
        JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013; 139: 811-816https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.3926
        • Mazzetto de Menezes K.S.
        • Master S.
        • Guzman M.
        • et al.
        Differences in acoustic and perceptual parameters of the voice between elderly and young women at habitual and high intensity.
        Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2014; 65: 76-84https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2013.07.009
        • Brockmann-Bauser M.
        • Bohlender J.E.
        • Mehta D.D.
        Acoustic perturbation measures improve with increasing vocal intensity in individuals with and without voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2018; 32: 162-168https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.04.008
        • Laukkanen A.M.
        • Ilomaki I.
        • Leppanen K.
        • et al.
        Acoustic measures and self-reports of vocal fatigue by female teachers.
        J Voice. 2008; 22: 283-289https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.10.001
        • Rantala L.M.
        • Hakala S.
        • Holmqvist S.
        • et al.
        Associations between voice ergonomic risk factors and acoustic features of the voice.
        Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2015; 40: 99-105https://doi.org/10.3109/14015439.2013.831947
        • Karnell M.P.
        • Hall K.D.
        • Landahl K.L.
        Comparison of fundamental frequency and perturbation measurements among three analysis systems.
        J Voice. 1995; 9: 383-393https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(05)80200-0