Reproducibility of Voice Parameters: The Effect of Room Acoustics and Microphones

Computer analysis of voice recordings is an integral part of the evaluation and management of voice disorders. In many practices, voice samples are taken in rooms that are not sound attenuated and/or sound-proofed; further, the technology used is rarely consistent. This will likely affect the record...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of voice 2020-05, Vol.34 (3), p.320-334
Main Authors:	Bottalico, Pasquale, Codino, Juliana, Cantor-Cutiva, Lady Catherine, Marks, Katherine, Nudelman, Charles J., Skeffington, Jean, Shrivastav, Rahul, Jackson-Menaldi, Maria Cristina, Hunter, Eric J., Rubin, Adam D.
Format:	Article
Language:	eng
Subjects:	Acoustic analysis of voice–Room acoustics–Background noise–Microphone quality Acoustics - instrumentation Adult Facility Design and Construction Female Humans Male Motion Noise - adverse effects Sound Sound Spectrography Speech Acoustics Speech Production Measurement Transducers Voice Quality Young Adult
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Computer analysis of voice recordings is an integral part of the evaluation and management of voice disorders. In many practices, voice samples are taken in rooms that are not sound attenuated and/or sound-proofed; further, the technology used is rarely consistent. This will likely affect the recordings, and therefore, their analyses. The objective of this study is to compare various acoustic outcome measures taken from samples recorded in a sound-proofed booth to those recorded in more common clinic environments. Further, the effects from six different commonly used microphones will be compared. Thirty-six speakers were recorded while reading a text and producing sustained vowels in a controlled acoustic environment. The collected samples were reproduced by a Head and Torso Simulator and recorded in three clinical rooms and in a sound booth using six different microphones. Newer measures (eg, Pitch Strength, cepstral peak prominence, Acoustic Voice Quality Index), as well as more traditional measures (eg Jitter, Shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio and Spectrum Tilt), were calculated from the samples collected with each microphone and within each room. The measures which are more robust to room acoustic differences, background noise, and microphone quality include Jitter and smooth cepstral peak prominence, followed by Shimmer, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, harmonics-to-noise ratio, Pitch Strength, and Spectrum Tilt. The effect of room acoustics and background noise on voice parameters appears to be stronger than the type of microphone used for the recording. Consequently, an appropriate acoustical clinical space may be more important than the quality of the microphone.
ISSN:	0892-1997 1873-4588