Literature DB >> 21081673

Comparing two methods for reducing variability in voice quality measurements.

Jody Kreiman1, Bruce R Gerratt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Interrater disagreements in ratings of quality plague the study of voice. This study compared 2 methods for handling this variability.
METHOD: Listeners provided multiple breathiness ratings for 2 sets of pathological voices, one including 20 male and 20 female voices unselected for quality and one including 20 breathy female voices. Ratings for each listener were averaged together, mean ratings were z transformed, and the likelihood that 2 listeners would agree exactly in their ratings was calculated as a function of averaging and standardizing condition. Data were also multidimensionally scaled to examine similarities among listeners in perceptual strategy. Results were compared with parallel analyses of existing breathiness ratings of the same voices gathered using a method-of-adjustment task.
RESULTS: Three-way interactions between the mean rating for a voice, standardization condition, and the number of voices averaged together were observed, but no main effect of averaging condition emerged. Multidimensional scaling revealed significant residual differences in perceptual strategy across listeners after averaging and standardizing. Ratings from the method-of-adjustment task showed both high agreement levels and consistent perceptual strategies across listeners, as theoretically predicted.
CONCLUSION: Averaging multiple ratings and standardizing the mean are inadequate in addressing variations in voice quality perception.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21081673      PMCID: PMC3107357          DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0083)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  20 in total

1.  Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assessment.

Authors:  J Kreiman; B R Gerratt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation.

Authors:  Karen M K Chan; Edwin M-L Yiu
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Equal appearing interval and visual analogue scaling of perceptual roughness and breathiness.

Authors:  Edwin M L Yiu; Chi-Yan Ng
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2004 Apr-May       Impact factor: 1.346

4.  Neural mechanisms for voice recognition.

Authors:  Attila Andics; James M McQueen; Karl Magnus Petersson; Viktor Gál; Gábor Rudas; Zoltán Vidnyánszky
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks.

Authors:  Jody Kreiman; Bruce R Gerratt; Mika Ito
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality.

Authors:  J Kreiman; B R Gerratt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Spectral noise levels and roughness ratings for vowels produced by males and females.

Authors:  F W Emanuel; M A Lively; J F McCoy
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr (Basel)       Date:  1973

8.  Classification of dysphonic voice: acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures.

Authors:  Tanya L Eadie; Philip C Doyle
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.009

9.  Perceptual distances of breathy voice quality: a comparison of psychophysical methods.

Authors:  Sona Patel; Rahul Shrivastav; David A Eddins
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 2.009

10.  Objective measures of breathy voice quality obtained using an auditory model.

Authors:  Rahul Shrivastav; Christine M Sapienza
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparing Measures of Voice Quality From Sustained Phonation and Continuous Speech.

Authors:  Bruce R Gerratt; Jody Kreiman; Marc Garellek
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  GALP Qualifier Scale: Initial Considerations to Classify a Voice Problem.

Authors:  Marina Englert; Viviana Mendoza; Mara Behlau; Marc De Bodt
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr Logop       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 0.849

3.  Auditory-Perceptual Features of Speech in Children and Adults With Down Syndrome: A Speech Profile Analysis.

Authors:  Raymond D Kent; Julie Eichhorn; Erin M Wilson; Youmi Suk; Daniel M Bolt; Houri K Vorperian
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.297

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.