Literature DB >> 15907433

A comparative study of acoustic voice measurements by means of Dr. Speech and Computerized Speech Lab.

Ilse Smits1, Piet Ceuppens, Marc S De Bodt.   

Abstract

In this study, the calculations and results of acoustic voice analysis as calculated by two different analysis systems (Doctor Speech (DRS), Tiger Electronics, Neu-Anspach, Germany, and Computerized Speech Lab (CSL), Kay Elemetrics Corporation, Lincoln Park, NJ) are compared. A group of 120 normal voices was selected for analysis of the objective parameters: fundamental frequency (F(0)), variation of F(0) (F(0)SD), jitter, shimmer, and harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR). The subject group was a random selection of normal voices of adults. The aim of this comparison was to find determined differences and similarities in data measurements between both systems to make data transfer possible. A significant correlation was found for F(0), HNR, and shimmer relative. The correlation for jitter (relative and absolute) and F(0)SD was weak. DRS and CSL are not comparable in absolute figures, but their judgment against normative data is identical. Further research is necessary to explore the affect on pathological voices or child voices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15907433     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Voice        ISSN: 0892-1997            Impact factor:   2.009


  8 in total

1.  Quantitative and descriptive comparison of four acoustic analysis systems: vowel measurements.

Authors:  Carlyn Burris; Houri K Vorperian; Marios Fourakis; Ray D Kent; Daniel M Bolt
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  [Voice diagnostics in professional sopranos: application of the protocol of the European Laryngological Society (ELS)].

Authors:  M Echternach; S Arndt; M F Zander; B Richter
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Relationships between pathological patterns and vocal qualities estimated by acoustic parameters.

Authors:  Young-Jae Park; Young-Bae Park
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2015-05-03       Impact factor: 1.978

4.  Acoustic analysis of voice using WPCVox: a comparative study with Multi Dimensional Voice Program.

Authors:  Juan Ignacio Godino-Llorente; Víctor Osma-Ruiz; Nicolás Sáenz-Lechón; Ignacio Cobeta-Marco; Ramón González-Herranz; Carlos Ramírez-Calvo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-10-09       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Autonomic function, voice, and mood states.

Authors:  Chan-Kyu Park; Sanghoon Lee; Hi-Joon Park; You-Sang Baik; Young-Bae Park; Young-Jae Park
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 4.435

6.  Exploring the feasibility of smart phone microphone for measurement of acoustic voice parameters and voice pathology screening.

Authors:  Virgilijus Uloza; Evaldas Padervinskis; Aurelija Vegiene; Ruta Pribuisiene; Viktoras Saferis; Evaldas Vaiciukynas; Adas Gelzinis; Antanas Verikas
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Analysis of vocal fold function from acoustic data simultaneously recorded with high-speed endoscopy.

Authors:  Michael Döllinger; Melda Kunduk; Manfred Kaltenbacher; Sabine Vondenhoff; Anke Ziethe; Ulrich Eysholdt; Christopher Bohr
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 2.009

8.  Voice disorders in severe obstructive sleep apnea patients and comparison of two acoustic analysis software programs: MDVP and Praat.

Authors:  Mei Wei; Jianqun Du; Xiaoyu Wang; Honghua Lu; Wei Wang; Peng Lin
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 2.816

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.