Ben Barsties V Latoszek1,2, Youri Maryn1,3,4, Ellen Gerrits5,6,7, Marc De Bodt1,8,9. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium. 2. Institute of Health Studies, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. European Institute for ORL, Sint-Augustinus Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium. 4. Faculty of Education, Health & Social Work, University College Ghent, Belgium. 5. Faculty of Health Care, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, the Netherlands. 6. Faculty of Humanities, University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Otolaryngology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium. 9. Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
Purpose: Over the last 5 decades, many acoustic measures have been created to measure roughness and breathiness. The aim of this study is to present a meta-analysis of correlation coefficients (r) between auditory-perceptual judgment of roughness and breathiness and various acoustic measures in both sustained vowels and continuous speech. Method: Scientific literature reporting perceptual-acoustic correlations on roughness and breathiness were sought in 28 databases. Weighted average correlation coefficients (rw) were calculated when multiple r-values were available for a specific acoustic marker. An rw ≥ .60 was the threshold for an acoustic measure to be considered acceptable. Results: From 103 studies of roughness and 107 studies of breathiness that were investigated, only 33 studies and 34 studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis on sustained vowels. Eighty-six acoustic measures were identified for roughness and 85 acoustic measures for breathiness on sustained vowels, in which 43 and 39 measures, respectively, yielded multiple r-values. Finally, only 14 measures for roughness and 12 measures for breathiness produced rw ≥ .60. On continuous speech, 4 measures for roughness and 21 measures for breathiness were identified, yielding 3 and 6 measures, respectively, with multiple r-values in which only 1 and 2, respectively, had rw ≥ .60. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that only a few acoustic parameters were determined as the best estimators for roughness and breathiness.
Purpose: Over the last 5 decades, many acoustic measures have been created to measure roughness and breathiness. The aim of this study is to present a meta-analysis of correlation coefficients (r) between auditory-perceptual judgment of roughness and breathiness and various acoustic measures in both sustained vowels and continuous speech. Method: Scientific literature reporting perceptual-acoustic correlations on roughness and breathiness were sought in 28 databases. Weighted average correlation coefficients (rw) were calculated when multiple r-values were available for a specific acoustic marker. An rw ≥ .60 was the threshold for an acoustic measure to be considered acceptable. Results: From 103 studies of roughness and 107 studies of breathiness that were investigated, only 33 studies and 34 studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis on sustained vowels. Eighty-six acoustic measures were identified for roughness and 85 acoustic measures for breathiness on sustained vowels, in which 43 and 39 measures, respectively, yielded multiple r-values. Finally, only 14 measures for roughness and 12 measures for breathiness produced rw ≥ .60. On continuous speech, 4 measures for roughness and 21 measures for breathiness were identified, yielding 3 and 6 measures, respectively, with multiple r-values in which only 1 and 2, respectively, had rw ≥ .60. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that only a few acoustic parameters were determined as the best estimators for roughness and breathiness.
Authors: Mara R Kapsner-Smith; Manuel E Díaz-Cádiz; Jennifer M Vojtech; Daniel P Buckley; Daryush D Mehta; Robert E Hillman; Lauren F Tracy; J Pieter Noordzij; Tanya L Eadie; Cara E Stepp Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 2.674
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