PURPOSE: In this study, the authors sought to determine (a) how specific vocal fold structural and vibratory features relate to breathy voice quality and (b) the relation of perceived breathiness to 4 acoustic correlates of breathiness. METHOD: A computational, kinematic model of the vocal fold medial surfaces was used to specify features of vocal fold structure and vibration in a manner consistent with breathy voice. Four model parameters were altered: vocal process separation, surface bulging, vibratory nodal point, and epilaryngeal constriction. Twelve naïve listeners rated breathiness of 364 samples relative to a reference. The degree of breathiness was then compared to (a) the underlying kinematic profile and (b) 4 acoustic measures: cepstral peak prominence (CPP), harmonics-to-noise ratio, and two measures of spectral slope. RESULTS: Vocal process separation alone accounted for 61.4% of the variance in perceptual rating. Adding nodal point ratio and bulging to the equation increased the explained variance to 88.7%. The acoustic measure CPP accounted for 86.7% of the variance in perceived breathiness, and explained variance increased to 92.6% with the addition of one spectral slope measure. CONCLUSION: Breathiness ratings were best explained kinematically by the degree of vocal process separation and acoustically by CPP.
PURPOSE: In this study, the authors sought to determine (a) how specific vocal fold structural and vibratory features relate to breathy voice quality and (b) the relation of perceived breathiness to 4 acoustic correlates of breathiness. METHOD: A computational, kinematic model of the vocal fold medial surfaces was used to specify features of vocal fold structure and vibration in a manner consistent with breathy voice. Four model parameters were altered: vocal process separation, surface bulging, vibratory nodal point, and epilaryngeal constriction. Twelve naïve listeners rated breathiness of 364 samples relative to a reference. The degree of breathiness was then compared to (a) the underlying kinematic profile and (b) 4 acoustic measures: cepstral peak prominence (CPP), harmonics-to-noise ratio, and two measures of spectral slope. RESULTS: Vocal process separation alone accounted for 61.4% of the variance in perceptual rating. Adding nodal point ratio and bulging to the equation increased the explained variance to 88.7%. The acoustic measure CPP accounted for 86.7% of the variance in perceived breathiness, and explained variance increased to 92.6% with the addition of one spectral slope measure. CONCLUSION: Breathiness ratings were best explained kinematically by the degree of vocal process separation and acoustically by CPP.
Authors: DanaJ A M Hartl; Stéphane Hans; Jacqueline Vaissière; DanielJ A M F Brasnu Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2002-10-18 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Yolanda D Heman-Ackah; Reinhardt J Heuer; Deirdre D Michael; Rosemary Ostrowski; Michelle Horman; Margaret M Baroody; James Hillenbrand; Robert T Sataloff Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Gabriel E Galindo; Sean D Peterson; Byron D Erath; Christian Castro; Robert E Hillman; Matías Zañartu Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Irene Hidalgo-De la Guía; Elena Garayzábal-Heinze; Pedro Gómez-Vilda; Rafael Martínez-Olalla; Daniel Palacios-Alonso Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.169