Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 61, No. 4, 2009
Issue release date: September 2009
Section title: Original Paper
Folia Phoniatr Logop 2009;61:217–226
(DOI:10.1159/000227999)

Perturbation Measures of Voice: A Comparative Study between Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Praat

Maryn Y.a · Corthals P.b · De Bodt M.d · Van Cauwenberge P.c · Deliyski D.e
aDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Sint-Jan General Hospital, Bruges, bFaculty of Health Care ‘Vesalius’, Hogeschool Gent, and cFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ghent, Ghent, and dDepartment of Communication Disorders, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium; eDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C., USA
email Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background/Aims: Frequency and amplitude perturbations are inherent in voice acoustic signals. The assessment of voice perturbation is influenced by several factors, including the type of recording equipment used and the measurement extraction algorithm applied. In the present study, perturbation measures provided by two computer systems (a purpose-built professional voice analysis apparatus and a personal computer-based system for acoustic voice assessment) and two computer programs (Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Praat) were compared. Methods: Correlations and inferential statistics for seven perturbation measures (absolute jitter, percent jitter, relative average perturbation, pitch perturbation quotient, shimmer in decibels, percent shimmer, and amplitude perturbation quotient) in 50 subjects with various voice disorders are presented. Results: Results indicate statistically significant differences between the two systems and programs, with the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program yielding consistently higher measures than Praat. Furthermore, correlation analyses show weak to moderate proportional relationships between the two systems and weak to strong proportional relationships between the two programs. Conclusion: Based on the literature and the proportional relationships and differences between the two systems and programs under consideration in this study, one can state that one can hardly compare frequency perturbation outcomes across systems and programs and amplitude perturbation outcomes across systems.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


  

Key Words

  • Perturbation measurement
  • Multi-Dimensional Voice Program
  • Praat
  • Computerized Speech Lab

References

  1. Titze IR: Principles of Voice Production. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1994.
  2. Baken RJ, Orlikoff RF: Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. San Diego, Singular Publishing Group, 2000.
  3. Lieberman P: Some acoustic measures of the fundamental periodicity of normal and pathologic larynges. J Acoust Soc Am 1963;35:344–353.

    External Resources

  4. Read C, Buder EH, Kent RD: Speech analysis systems: an evaluation. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:314–332.
  5. Howard DM: The real and non-real in speech measurements. Proc 2nd Int Workshop on Models and Analysis of Vocal Emissions for Biomedical Applications MAVEBA, Florence, 2001.
  6. Kay Elemetrics Corp: Multi-Speech and CSL Software: Software Instruction Manual. Lincoln Park, Kay Elemetrics, 2004.
  7. Kay Elemetrics Corp: Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) Model 5105: Software Instruction Manual. Lincoln Park, Kay Elemetrics, 2003.
  8. Boersma P: Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 2001;5:341–345.
  9. Boersma P, Weenink D: Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 4.3.14); computer program. Amsterdam, Institute of Phonetic Sciences. http://www.praat.org (accessed May 5, 2005).
  10. Eskenazi L, Childers DG, Hicks DM: Acoustic correlates of vocal quality. J Speech Hear Res 1990;33:298–306.
  11. Dejonckere PH, Remacle M, Fresnel-Elbaz E, Woisard V, Crevier-Buchman L, Millet B: Differentiated perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 1996;117:219–224.
  12. Hirano M: Clinical Examination of Voice. Vienna, Springer, 1981.
  13. Wolfe V, Martin D: Acoustic correlates of dysphonia: type and severity. J Commun Disord 1997;30:403–416.
  14. Bhuta T, Patrick L, Garnett JD: Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements. J Voice 2004;18:299–304.
  15. De Bodt M: A Framework of Voice Assessment: The Relation between Subjective and Objective Parameters in the Judgement of Normal and Pathological Voice; doct diss University of Antwerp, Antwerp, 1997.
  16. Kreiman J, Gerratt B: Measuring vocal quality; in Kent RD, Ball MJ (eds): Voice Quality Measurement. San Diego, Singular Publishing Group, 2000, pp 73–101.
  17. Titze IR, Winholtz WS: Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res 1993;36:1177–1190.
  18. Winholtz WS, Titze IR: Miniature head-mounted microphone for voice perturbation analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40:894–899.
  19. Deliyski DD, Evans MK, Shaw HS: Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice 2005;19:176–186.
  20. Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK: Influence of sampling rate on accuracy and reliability of acoustic voice analysis. Logop Phoniatr Vocol 2005;30:55–62.
  21. Winholtz WS, Titze IR: Suitability of minidisc (MD) recordings for voice perturbation analysis. J Voice 1998;12:138–142.
  22. Bielamowicz S, Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Dauer MS, Berke GS: Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement. J Speech Hear Res 1993;39:126–134.
  23. Karnell MP, Hall KD, Landahl KL: Comparison of fundamental frequency and perturbation measurements among three analysis systems. J Voice 1995;9:383–393.
  24. Smits I, Ceuppens P, De Bodt MS: Comparative study of acoustic voice measurements by means of Dr. Speech and Computerized Speech Lab. J Voice 2005;19:187–196.
  25. Rabinov CR, Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Bielamowicz S: Comparing reliability of perceptual ratings of roughness and acoustic measures of jitter. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:26–32.
  26. Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK, Vesselinov R: Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2006;58:274–288.
  27. Titze IR, Liang H: Comparison of F0 extraction methods for high-precision voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res 1993;36:1120–1133.
  28. Awan SN, Scarpino SE: Measures of vocal F0 from continuous speech samples: an interprogram comparison. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 2004;28:122–131.
  29. Roark RM: Frequency and voice: perspectives in the time domain. J Voice 2006;20:325–354.
  30. Deliyski D, Shaw E: Acoustic measurement of jitter and shimmer: inter- and intrasystem relationships. Proc ASHA Convention, Miami Beach, November 2006.
  31. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, Silbergleit A, Jacobson G, Benninger MS: The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6:66–70.
  32. Wuyts FL, De Bodt MS, Molenberghs G, Remacle M, Heylen L, Millet B, Van Lierde K, Raes J, Van de Heyning PH: The Dysphonia Severity Index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;43:796–809.
  33. AKG Acoustics: C420: User Instruction. MicroMic series II. München, AKG Acoustics Harman Pro, 2000.
  34. Shure Inc: Model Prologue 14H User Guide. Evanston, Shure, 2003.
  35. Deliyski DD: Acoustic model and evaluation of pathological voice production. Proc Eurospeech, Berlin, September 1993.
  36. Boersma P: Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound. Proc Inst Phonet Sci, Amsterdam, 1993, vol 17, pp 97–110.
  37. Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK: Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice 2005;19:15–28.
  38. Titze IR: Workshop on acoustic voice analysis: summary statement. Iowa City, National Center for Voice and Speech, 1995.
  39. Boersma P: Stemmen meten met Praat. Stem-Spraak-Taalpathol 2004;12:237–251.

  

Author Contacts

Youri Maryn
Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery
Sint-Jan General Hospital, Ruddershove 10, BE–8000 Bruges (Belgium)
Tel. +32 50 452 448, Fax +32 50 452 290, E-Mail youri.maryn@azbrugge.be

  

Article Information

Published online: July 9, 2009
Number of Print Pages : 10
Number of Figures : 5, Number of Tables : 6, Number of References : 39

  

Publication Details

Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (International Journal of Phoniatrics, Speech Therapy and Communication Pathology)

Vol. 61, No. 4, Year 2009 (Cover Date: September 2009)

Journal Editor: Schutte H.K. (Groningen)
ISSN: 1021-7762 (Print), eISSN: 1421-9972 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/FPL


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Titze IR: Principles of Voice Production. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1994.
  2. Baken RJ, Orlikoff RF: Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. San Diego, Singular Publishing Group, 2000.
  3. Lieberman P: Some acoustic measures of the fundamental periodicity of normal and pathologic larynges. J Acoust Soc Am 1963;35:344–353.

    External Resources

  4. Read C, Buder EH, Kent RD: Speech analysis systems: an evaluation. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:314–332.
  5. Howard DM: The real and non-real in speech measurements. Proc 2nd Int Workshop on Models and Analysis of Vocal Emissions for Biomedical Applications MAVEBA, Florence, 2001.
  6. Kay Elemetrics Corp: Multi-Speech and CSL Software: Software Instruction Manual. Lincoln Park, Kay Elemetrics, 2004.
  7. Kay Elemetrics Corp: Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) Model 5105: Software Instruction Manual. Lincoln Park, Kay Elemetrics, 2003.
  8. Boersma P: Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 2001;5:341–345.
  9. Boersma P, Weenink D: Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 4.3.14); computer program. Amsterdam, Institute of Phonetic Sciences. http://www.praat.org (accessed May 5, 2005).
  10. Eskenazi L, Childers DG, Hicks DM: Acoustic correlates of vocal quality. J Speech Hear Res 1990;33:298–306.
  11. Dejonckere PH, Remacle M, Fresnel-Elbaz E, Woisard V, Crevier-Buchman L, Millet B: Differentiated perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 1996;117:219–224.
  12. Hirano M: Clinical Examination of Voice. Vienna, Springer, 1981.
  13. Wolfe V, Martin D: Acoustic correlates of dysphonia: type and severity. J Commun Disord 1997;30:403–416.
  14. Bhuta T, Patrick L, Garnett JD: Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements. J Voice 2004;18:299–304.
  15. De Bodt M: A Framework of Voice Assessment: The Relation between Subjective and Objective Parameters in the Judgement of Normal and Pathological Voice; doct diss University of Antwerp, Antwerp, 1997.
  16. Kreiman J, Gerratt B: Measuring vocal quality; in Kent RD, Ball MJ (eds): Voice Quality Measurement. San Diego, Singular Publishing Group, 2000, pp 73–101.
  17. Titze IR, Winholtz WS: Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res 1993;36:1177–1190.
  18. Winholtz WS, Titze IR: Miniature head-mounted microphone for voice perturbation analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40:894–899.
  19. Deliyski DD, Evans MK, Shaw HS: Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice 2005;19:176–186.
  20. Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK: Influence of sampling rate on accuracy and reliability of acoustic voice analysis. Logop Phoniatr Vocol 2005;30:55–62.
  21. Winholtz WS, Titze IR: Suitability of minidisc (MD) recordings for voice perturbation analysis. J Voice 1998;12:138–142.
  22. Bielamowicz S, Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Dauer MS, Berke GS: Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement. J Speech Hear Res 1993;39:126–134.
  23. Karnell MP, Hall KD, Landahl KL: Comparison of fundamental frequency and perturbation measurements among three analysis systems. J Voice 1995;9:383–393.
  24. Smits I, Ceuppens P, De Bodt MS: Comparative study of acoustic voice measurements by means of Dr. Speech and Computerized Speech Lab. J Voice 2005;19:187–196.
  25. Rabinov CR, Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Bielamowicz S: Comparing reliability of perceptual ratings of roughness and acoustic measures of jitter. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:26–32.
  26. Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK, Vesselinov R: Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2006;58:274–288.
  27. Titze IR, Liang H: Comparison of F0 extraction methods for high-precision voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res 1993;36:1120–1133.
  28. Awan SN, Scarpino SE: Measures of vocal F0 from continuous speech samples: an interprogram comparison. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 2004;28:122–131.
  29. Roark RM: Frequency and voice: perspectives in the time domain. J Voice 2006;20:325–354.
  30. Deliyski D, Shaw E: Acoustic measurement of jitter and shimmer: inter- and intrasystem relationships. Proc ASHA Convention, Miami Beach, November 2006.
  31. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, Silbergleit A, Jacobson G, Benninger MS: The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6:66–70.
  32. Wuyts FL, De Bodt MS, Molenberghs G, Remacle M, Heylen L, Millet B, Van Lierde K, Raes J, Van de Heyning PH: The Dysphonia Severity Index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;43:796–809.
  33. AKG Acoustics: C420: User Instruction. MicroMic series II. München, AKG Acoustics Harman Pro, 2000.
  34. Shure Inc: Model Prologue 14H User Guide. Evanston, Shure, 2003.
  35. Deliyski DD: Acoustic model and evaluation of pathological voice production. Proc Eurospeech, Berlin, September 1993.
  36. Boersma P: Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound. Proc Inst Phonet Sci, Amsterdam, 1993, vol 17, pp 97–110.
  37. Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK: Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice 2005;19:15–28.
  38. Titze IR: Workshop on acoustic voice analysis: summary statement. Iowa City, National Center for Voice and Speech, 1995.
  39. Boersma P: Stemmen meten met Praat. Stem-Spraak-Taalpathol 2004;12:237–251.