Advertisement

Voice Quality in Telephone Interviews: A preliminary Acoustic Investigation

  • Timothy Pommée
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Timothy Pommée University of Liège – Voice Unit (B38), Rue de l'Aunaie, 30, 4000 - Sart Tilman, Belgium.
    Affiliations
    Research Unit for a life-Course perspective on Health and Education, Voice Unit, University of Liège, Belgium
    Search for articles by this author
  • Dominique Morsomme
    Affiliations
    Research Unit for a life-Course perspective on Health and Education, Voice Unit, University of Liège, Belgium
    Search for articles by this author
Published:September 30, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.08.027

      Summary

      Objectives

      To investigate the impact of standardized mobile phone recordings passed through a telecom channel on acoustic markers of voice quality and on its perception by voice experts in normophonic speakers.

      Methods

      Continuous speech and a sustained vowel were recorded for fourteen female and ten male normophonic speakers. The recordings were done simultaneously with a head-mounted high-quality microphone and through the telephone network on a receiving smartphone. Twenty-two acoustic voice quality, breathiness and pitch-related measures were extracted from the recordings. Nine vocologists perceptually rated the G, R and B parameters of the GRBAS scale on each voice sample. The reproducibility, the recording type, the stimulus type and the gender effects, as well as the correlation between acoustic and perceptual measures were investigated.

      Results

      The sustained vowel samples are damped after one second. Only the frequencies between 100 and 3700Hz are passed through the telecom channel and the frequency response is characterized by peaks and troughs. The acoustic measures show a good reproducibility over the three repetitions. All measures significantly differ between the recording types, except for the local jitter, the harmonics-to-noise ratio by Dejonckere and Lebacq, the period standard deviation and all six pitch measures. The AVQI score is higher in telephone recordings, while the ABI score is lower. Significant differences between genders are also found for most of the measures; while the AVQI is similar in men and women, the ABI is higher in women in both recording types. For the perceptual assessment, the interrater agreement is rather low, while the reproducibility over the three repetitions is good. Few significant differences between recording types are observed, except for lower breathiness ratings on telephone recordings. G ratings are significantly more severe on the sustained vowel on both recording types, R ratings only on telephone recordings. While roughness is rated higher in men on telephone recordings by most experts, no gender effect is observed for breathiness on either recording types. Finally, neither the AVQI nor the ABI yield strong correlations with any of the perceptual parameters.

      Conclusions

      Our results show that passing a voice signal through a telecom channel induces filter and noise effects that limit the use of common acoustic voice quality measures and indexes. The AVQI and ABI are both significantly impacted by the recording type. The most reliable acoustic measures seem to be pitch perturbation (local jitter and period standard deviation) as well as the harmonics-to-noise ratio from Dejonckere and Lebacq. Our results also underline that raters are not equally sensitive to the various factors, including the recording type, the stimulus type and the gender effects. Neither of the three perceptual parameters G, R and B seem to be reliably measurable on telephone recordings using the two investigated acoustic indexes. Future studies investigating the impact of voice quality in telephone conversations should thus focus on acoustic measures on continuous speech samples that are limited to the frequency response of the telecom channel and that are not too sensitive to environmental and additive noise.

      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. International Labour Organization. ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Seventh edition. Updated estimates and analysis. International Labour Organization. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_740877.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2022.

      2. Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques. Emploi salarié - deuxième trimestre 2020. Available at: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4653055. Accessed December 15, 2021.

        • Lo Giudice C
        Une IA peut-elle enrichir le processus de sélection ?.
        HRSquare. 2020; 36: 49
        • Hiemstra AMF
        • Derous E
        Video résumés portrayed : findings and challenges.
        in: Nikolaou I Oostrom J Employee Recruitment, Selection, and Assessment: Contemporary Issues for Theory and Practice. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, Sussex, UK2015: 45-60
        • Oostrom JK
        • Van Der Linden D
        • Born MP
        • et al.
        New technology in personnel selection: how recruiter characteristics affect the adoption of new selection technology.
        Comput Human Behav. 2013; 29: 2404-2415https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.025
        • Woods SA
        • Ahmed S
        • Nikolaou I
        • et al.
        Personnel selection in the digital age: a review of validity and applicant reactions, and future research challenges.
        Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2020; 29: 64-77https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1681401
      3. Baker M. Gartner HR survey shows 86% of organizations are conducting virtual interviews to hire candidates during Coronavirus pandemic. Availableat: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-04-30-gartner-hr-survey-shows-86–of-organizations-are-cond. Accessed January 18, 2022.

      4. Walters People. Video interviews spike by 67% – according to recruitment firm. Available at: https://www.walterspeople.co.uk/news/video-interviews-spike.html. Accessed January 11, 2022.

        • Waung M
        • Hymes RW
        • Beatty JE
        The effects of video and paper resumes on assessments of personality, applied social skills, mental capability, and resume outcomes.
        Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2014; 36: 238-251https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.894477
        • Basch JM
        • Melchers KG
        The use of technology-mediated interviews and their perception from the organization's point of view.
        Int J Sel Assess. 2021; 29: 495-502https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12339
        • Tylečková L
        • Prokopová Z
        • Skarnitzl R
        The effect of voice quality on hiring decisions.
        AUC Philol. 2017; 2017: 109-120https://doi.org/10.14712/24646830.2017.37
        • Straus SG
        • Miles JA
        • Levesque LL
        The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in employment interviews.
        J Manage. 2001; 27: 363-381https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700308
        • Katopol P
        The halo effect and bounded rationality: limits on decision-making.
        Libr Leadersh Manag. 2018; 32: 1-5https://doi.org/10.5860/llm.v32i3.7312
        • Lievens F
        Handboek Human Resource Management: Back to Basic.
        Lannoo Campus, Den Haag2011
        • DeGroot T
        • Kluemper D
        Evidence of predictive and incremental validity of personality factors, vocal attractiveness and the situational interview.
        Int J Sel Assess. 2007; 15: 30-39https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00365.x
        • Isetti DD
        • Baylor CR
        • Burns MI
        • et al.
        Employer reactions to adductor spasmodic dysphonia: exploring the influence of symptom severity and disclosure of diagnosis during a simulated telephone interview.
        Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2017; 26: 469-482https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0040
      5. Verduyckt I, Morsomme D. Vocal beauty: a mediating variable in the negative stereotyping of dysphonic speakers. Logop Phoniatr Vocology. 2020;45:164–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2019.1694697

        • Blood GW
        • Mahan BW
        • Hyman M
        Judging personality and appearance from voice disorders.
        J Commun Disord. 1979; 12: 63-67https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(79)90022-4
        • Isetti D
        • Xuereb L
        • Eadie TL
        Inferring speaker attributes in adductor spasmodic dysphonia: ratings from unfamiliar listeners.
        Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2014; 23: 134-145https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_AJSLP-13-0010
        • Nagle KF
        • Eadie TL
        • Yorkston KM
        Everyday listeners’ impressions of speech produced by individuals with adductor spasmodic dysphonia.
        J Commun Disord. 2015; 58: 1-13https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.07.001
        • Mahrholz G
        • Belin P
        • McAleer P
        Judgements of a speaker's personality are correlated across differing content and stimulus type.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13e0204991https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204991
        • McAleer P
        • Todorov A
        • Belin P
        How do you say ‘hello’? Personality impressions from brief novel voices.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: e90779https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090779
        • Anderson RC
        • Klofstad CA
        • Mayew WJ
        • et al.
        Vocal fry may undermine the success of young women in the labor market.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: 1-8https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097506
        • Pisanski K
        • Sorokowski P
        Human stress detection: cortisol levels in stressed speakers predict voice-based judgments of stress.
        Perception. 2021; 50: 80-87https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006620978378
        • Oleszkiewicz A
        • Pisanski K
        • Lachowicz-Tabaczek K
        • et al.
        Voice-based assessments of trustworthiness, competence, and warmth in blind and sighted adults.
        Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 24: 856-862https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1146-y
        • Van Zant AB
        • Berger J
        How the voice persuades.
        J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020; 118: 661-682https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000193
        • Hodges-Simeon CR
        • Gaulin SJC
        • Puts DA
        Different vocal parameters predict perceptions of dominance and attractiveness.
        Hum Nat. 2010; 21: 406-427https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9101-5
        • Bruckert L
        • Bestelmeyer P
        • Latinus M
        • et al.
        Vocal attractiveness increases by averaging.
        Curr Biol. 2010; 20: 116-120https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.034
        • Naim I
        • Tanveer MI
        • Gildea D
        • et al.
        Automated prediction and analysis of job interview performance: the role of what you say and how you say it.
        in: 2015 11th IEEE Int Conf Work Autom Face Gesture Recognition, FG 2015. 2015https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2015.7163127
        • Hemamou L
        • Felhi G
        • Vandenbussche V
        • et al.
        HireNet: a hierarchical attention model for the automatic analysis of asynchronous video job interviews.
        arXiv. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301573
      6. Lee T, Ziegler M. Forewarned is forearmed: using AI to detect SDR tendencies as personnel selection tools. 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7htfs

        • Babel M
        • McGuire G
        • King J
        Towards a more nuanced view of vocal attractiveness.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: 1-10https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088616
        • Imhof M
        Listening to voices and judging people.
        Int J List. 2010; 24: 19-33https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010903466295
        • Claeys A-S
        • Cauberghe V
        Keeping control: the importance of nonverbal expressions of power by organizational spokespersons in times of crisis.
        J Commun. 2014; 64: 1160-1180https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12122
        • Passetti RR
        • Constantini AC
        The effect of telephone transmission on voice quality perception.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 649-658https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.04.018
        • Chhetri DK
        • Merati AL
        • Blumin JH
        • et al.
        Reliability of the perceptual evaluation of adductor spasmodic dysphonia.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008; 117: 159-165https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940811700301
        • Nguyen DD
        • McCabe P
        • Thomas D
        • et al.
        Acoustic voice characteristics with and without wearing a facemask.
        Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 1-11https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85130-8
        • Vogel AP
        • Rosen KM
        • Morgan AT
        • et al.
        Comparability of modern recording devices for speech analysis: smartphone, landline, laptop, and hard disc recorder.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014; 66: 244-250https://doi.org/10.1159/000368227
        • Uloza V
        • Padervinskis E
        • Vegiene A
        • et al.
        Exploring the feasibility of smart phone microphone for measurement of acoustic voice parameters and voice pathology screening.
        Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2015; 272: 3391-3399https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3708-4
        • Manfredi C
        • Lebacq J
        • Cantarella G
        • et al.
        Smartphones offer new opportunities in clinical voice research.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 111.e1-111.e7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.12.020
        • Lin E
        • Hornibrook J
        • Ormond T
        Evaluating iPhone recordings for acoustic voice assessment.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2012; 64: 122-130https://doi.org/10.1159/000335874
        • Lebacq J
        • Schoentgen J
        • Cantarella G
        • et al.
        Maximal ambient noise levels and type of voice material required for valid use of smartphones in clinical voice research.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 550-556https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.02.017
        • Kojima T
        • Fujimura S
        • Hori R
        • et al.
        An innovative voice analyzer “VA” smart phone program for quantitative analysis of voice quality.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 642-648https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.01.026
        • Kojima T
        • Hasebe K
        • Fujimura S
        • et al.
        A new iPhone application for voice quality assessment based on the GRBAS scale.
        Laryngoscope. 2021; 131: 580-582https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28796
        • Munnings AJ
        The current state and future possibilities of mobile phone “voice analyser” applications, in relation to otorhinolaryngology.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 527-532https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.12.018
        • Maryn Y
        • Ysenbaert F
        • Zarowski A
        • et al.
        Mobile communication devices, ambient noise, and acoustic voice measures.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 248.e11-248.e23https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.07.023
        • Marsano-Cornejo M-J
        • Roco-Videla Á
        Comparison of the acoustic parameters obtained with different smartphones and a professional microphone.
        Acta Otorrinolaringol (English Ed. 2022; 73: 51-55https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otoeng.2020.08.009
        • Wormald RN
        • Moran RJ
        • Reilly RB
        • et al.
        Performance of an automated, remote system to detect vocal fold paralysis.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008; 117: 834-838https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940811701107
        • Moran RJ
        • Reilly RB
        • De Chazal P
        • et al.
        Telephony-based voice pathology assessment using automated speech analysis.
        IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006; 53: 468-477https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2005.869776
        • Tsanas A
        • Little MA
        • Ramig LO
        Remote assessment of Parkinson's disease symptom severity using the simulated cellular mobile telephone network.
        IEEE Access. 2021; 9: 11024-11036https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050524
        • Arora S
        • Baghai-Ravary L
        • Tsanas A
        Developing a large scale population screening tool for the assessment of Parkinson's disease using telephone-quality voice.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 145: 2871-2884https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5100272
      7. Cannizzaro MS, Reilly N, Mundt JC, et al. Remote capture of human voice acoustical data by telephone: a methods study. Clin Linguist Phonetics. 19:649–658.

        • Mundt JC
        • Snyder PJ
        • Cannizzaro MS
        • et al.
        Voice acoustic measures of depression severity and treatment response collected via interactive voice response (IVR) technology.
        J Neurolinguistics. 2007; 20: 50-64https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.04.001
        • Zawawi SA
        • Hamzah AA
        • Majlis BY
        • et al.
        A review of MEMS capacitive microphones.
        Micromachines. 2020; 11: 1-26https://doi.org/10.3390/MI11050484
        • Kent R
        • Read C
        Acoustic Analysis of Speech.
        2nd ed. Singular, Canada2002
        • Johnson DM
        • Hapner ER
        • Klein AM
        • et al.
        Validation of a telephone screening tool for spasmodic dysphonia and vocal fold tremor.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 711-715https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.03.009
        • Harmegnies B
        • Landercy A
        Intra-speaker variability of the long term speech spectrum.
        Speech Commun. 1988; 7: 81-86https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(88)90023-4
        • Pommée T
        • Maryn Y
        • Finck C
        • et al.
        Validation of the acoustic voice quality index, version 03.01, in French.
        J Voice. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.12.008
        • Chial MR
        Suggestions for computer-based audio recording of speech samples for perceptual and acoustic analyses.
        (Tech. Rep. No. 13). Phonology Project, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2003;
        • Maryn Y
        • Corthals P
        • Van Cauwenberge P
        • et al.
        Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 540-555https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014
        • Barsties B
        • Maryn Y
        External validation of the acoustic voice quality index Version 03.01 with extended representativity.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016; 125: 571-583https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489416636131
        • Barsties v. Latoszek B
        • Maryn Y
        • Gerrits E
        • et al.
        The acoustic breathiness index (ABI): a multivariate acoustic model for breathiness.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 511.e11-511.e27https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.11.017
        • Barsties v
        • Latoszek B
        • Kim GH
        • et al.
        The validity of the acoustic breathiness index in the evaluation of breathy voice quality: a meta-analysis.
        Clin Otolaryngol. 2021; 46: 31-40https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13629
        • Hirano M.
        Clinical Examination of Voice.
        Springer Verlag, New York, NY1981
        • Lehnert B
        • Herold J
        • Blaurock M
        • et al.
        Reliability of the acoustic voice quality index AVQI and the acoustic breathiness index (ABI) when wearing CoViD-19 protective masks.
        Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2022; 279: 4617-4621https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07417-4
        • Uloza V
        • Petrauskas T
        • Padervinskis E
        • et al.
        Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the lithuanian language.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 257.e1-257.e11https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.06.002
        • Kankare E
        • Barsties V
        • Latoszek B
        • et al.
        The acoustic voice quality index version 02.02 in the Finnish-speaking population.
        Logop Phoniatr Vocology. 2020; 45: 49-56https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2018.1556332
        • Hosokawa K
        • von Latoszek BB
        • Ferrer-Riesgo CA
        • et al.
        Acoustic breathiness index for the Japanese-speaking population: validation study and exploration of affecting factors.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2019; 62: 2617-2631https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-19-0077
        • Barsties v. Latoszek B
        • Lehnert B
        • Janotte B
        Validation of the acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 and acoustic breathiness index in German.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 157.e17-157.e25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.07.026
        • Delgado Hernández J
        • León Gómez NM
        • Jiménez A
        • et al.
        Validation of the acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 and the acoustic breathiness index in the Spanish language.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018; 127: 317-326https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489418761096
        • Kim G-H
        • Lee Y-W
        • Bae I-H
        • et al.
        Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the Korean language.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 948.e1-948.e9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.06.007
        • Englert M
        • Latoszek BB v.
        • Behlau M
        Exploring the validity of acoustic measurements and other voice assessments.
        J Voice. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.12.014
        • Ben BB
        • Maryn Y
        • Gerrits E
        • et al.
        A meta-analysis: acoustic measurement of roughness and breathiness.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2018; 61: 298-323https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0188
        • Laukkanen A-M
        • Rantala L
        Does the acoustic voice quality index (AVQI) correlate with perceived creak and strain in normophonic young adult finnish females?.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2022; 74: 62-69https://doi.org/10.1159/000514796
        • Batthyany C
        • Maryn Y
        • Trauwaen I
        • et al.
        A case of specificity: how does the acoustic voice quality index perform in normophonic subjects?.
        Appl Sci. 2019; 9: 2527https://doi.org/10.3390/app9122527
        • Faham M
        • Laukkanen A-M
        • Ikävalko T
        • et al.
        Acoustic voice quality index as a potential tool for voice screening.
        J Voice. 2021; 35: 226-232https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.08.017
        • Li G
        • Hou Q
        • Zhang C
        • et al.
        Acoustic parameters for the evaluation of voice quality in patients with voice disorders.
        Ann Palliat Med. 2021; 10: 130-136https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-2102
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Bradley P
        • Clemente P
        • et al.
        A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques.
        Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2001; 258: 77-82https://doi.org/10.1007/s004050000299
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Obbens C
        • de Moor GM
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1993; 45: 76-83https://doi.org/10.1159/000266220
        • De Bodt MS
        • Wuyts FL
        • Van de Heyning PH
        • et al.
        Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality.
        J Voice. 1997; 11: 74-80https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(97)80026-4
        • Webb AL
        • Carding PN
        • Deary IJ
        • et al.
        The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia.
        Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2004; 261: 429-434https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-003-0707-7
        • Delvaux V
        • Pillot-Loiseau C
        Perceptual judgment of voice quality in nondysphonic French speakers: effect of task-, speaker- and listener-related variables.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 682-693https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.02.013
      8. Mayer J. Praat Skripte : auditive Stimmanalyse (GRBAS) mit dem Demo- Window. Available at: http://praatpfanne.lingphon.net/downloads/demo_GRBAS.txt. Accessed January 14, 2022.

        • Landis JR
        • Koch GG
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Prion S
        • Haerling KA
        Making sense of methods and measurement: spearman-rho ranked-order correlation coefficient.
        Clin Simul Nurs. 2014; 10: 535-536https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2014.07.005
      9. Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance. Code éthique et déontologique des logopèdes. Availableat: https://www.inami.fgov.be/fr/professionnels/sante/logopedes/Pages/logopedes-code-ethique-deontologique.aspx. Accessed December 11, 2021.

        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Kempster GB
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.21
        • Pommée T
        • Balaguer M
        • Pinquier J
        • et al.
        Relationship between phoneme-level spectral acoustics and speech intelligibility in healthy speech: a systematic review.
        Speech, Lang Hear. 2021; 24: 105-132https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2021.1913300
        • Brockmann M
        • Drinnan MJ
        • Storck C
        • et al.
        Reliable jitter and shimmer measurements in voice clinics: the relevance of vowel, gender, vocal intensity, and fundamental frequency effects in a typical clinical task.
        J Voice. 2011; 25: 44-53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.07.002
        • Brockmann M
        • Storck C
        • Carding PN
        • et al.
        Voice loudness and gender effects on jitter and shimmer in healthy adults.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2008; 51: 1152-1160https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0208
        • Van Borsel J
        • Janssens J
        • De Bodt M
        Breathiness as a feminine voice characteristic: a perceptual approach.
        J Voice. 2009; 23: 291-294https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.08.002
        • Hejná M
        • Šturm P
        • Tylečková L
        • et al.
        Normophonic breathiness in Czech and Danish: are females breathier than males?.
        J Voice. 2021; 35: 498.e1-498.e22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.10.019
        • Paz KE da S
        • de Almeida AAF
        • Almeida LNA
        • et al.
        Auditory perception of roughness and breathiness by dysphonic women.
        J Voice. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.01.005
        • Moyse E
        • Beaufort A
        • Brédart S
        Evidence for an own-age bias in age estimation from voices in older persons.
        Eur J Ageing. 2014; 11: 241-247https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-014-0305-0
        • Barsties B
        • Maryn Y
        Test-Retest-Variabilität und interne Konsistenz des acoustic voice quality index.
        HNO. 2013; 61: 399-403https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-012-2649-0
        • Barsties v. Latoszek B
        • Ulozaitė-Stanienė N
        • Maryn Y
        • et al.
        The influence of gender and age on the acoustic voice quality index and Dysphonia severity index: a normative study.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 340-345https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.11.011
        • Jayakumar T
        • Benoy JJ
        • Yasin HM
        Effect of age and gender on acoustic voice quality index across lifespan: a cross-sectional study in Indian population.
        J Voice. 2022; 36: 436.e1-436.e8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.05.025
        • Henton CG
        • Bladon RAW
        Breathiness in normal female speech: inefficiency versus desirability.
        Lang Commun. 1985; 5: 221-227https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(85)90012-6
        • Södersten M
        • Lindestad P-Å
        Glottal closure and perceived breathiness during phonation in normally speaking subjects.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 1990; 33: 601-611https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3303.601
        • Klatt DH
        • Klatt LC
        Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 87: 820-857https://doi.org/10.1121/1.398894
        • Hanson HM
        • Stevens KN
        • Kuo H-KJ
        • et al.
        Towards models of phonation.
        J Phon. 2001; 29: 451-480https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0146
        • Simpson A
        Breathiness differences in male and female speech. Is H1-H2 an appropriate measure?.
        in: Proceedings Fonetik. Stockholm University. 2009 (doi: 10.1.1.623.3294)
        • Pépiot E
        Voice, speech and gender.
        Corela. 2015; : 0-13https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.3783
      10. van der Woerd B. VOice analysis with Iphones: a low Cost Experimental Solution. 2019. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 6719. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/6719

        • Heman-Ackah YD
        • Michael DD
        • Baroody MM
        • et al.
        Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200406
        • Wolfe V
        • Cornell R
        • Fitch J
        Sentence/vowel correlation in the evaluation of dysphonia.
        J Voice. 1995; 9: 297-303https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80237-1
        • Maryn Y
        • Roy N
        Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity.
        J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012; 24: 107-112https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-64912012000200003