Shaheen N Awan1, Mohsin A Shaikh2, Maude Desjardins3, Hagar Feinstein3, Katherine Verdolini Abbott3. 1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa. 2. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Delaware, Newark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish the frequency response of a selection of low-cost headset microphones that could be given to subjects for remote voice recordings and to examine the effect of microphone type and frequency response on key acoustic measures related to voice quality obtained from speech and vowel samples. METHOD: The frequency responses of three low-cost headset microphones were evaluated using pink noise generated via a head-and-torso model. Each of the headset microphones was then used to record a series of speech and vowel samples prerecorded from 24 speakers who represented a diversity of sex, age, fundamental frequency (F o), and voice quality types. Recordings were later analyzed for the following measures: smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPP; dB), low versus high spectral ratio (L/H ratio; dB), CPP F o (Hz), and cepstral spectral index of dysphonia (CSID). RESULTS: The frequency response of the microphones under test was observed to have nonsignificant effects on measures of the CPP and CPP F o, significant effects on the CSID in speech contexts, and strong and significant effects on the measure of spectral tilt (L/H ratio). However, the correlations between the various headset microphones and a reference precision microphone were excellent (rs > .90). CONCLUSIONS: The headset microphones under test all showed the capability to track a wide range of diversity in the voice signal. Though the use of higher quality microphones that have demonstrated specifications is recommended for typical research and clinical purposes, low-cost electret microphones may be used to provide valid measures of voice, specifically when the same microphone and signal chain is used for the evaluation of pre- versus posttreatment change or intergroup comparisons.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish the frequency response of a selection of low-cost headset microphones that could be given to subjects for remote voice recordings and to examine the effect of microphone type and frequency response on key acoustic measures related to voice quality obtained from speech and vowel samples. METHOD: The frequency responses of three low-cost headset microphones were evaluated using pink noise generated via a head-and-torso model. Each of the headset microphones was then used to record a series of speech and vowel samples prerecorded from 24 speakers who represented a diversity of sex, age, fundamental frequency (F o), and voice quality types. Recordings were later analyzed for the following measures: smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPP; dB), low versus high spectral ratio (L/H ratio; dB), CPP F o (Hz), and cepstral spectral index of dysphonia (CSID). RESULTS: The frequency response of the microphones under test was observed to have nonsignificant effects on measures of the CPP and CPP F o, significant effects on the CSID in speech contexts, and strong and significant effects on the measure of spectral tilt (L/H ratio). However, the correlations between the various headset microphones and a reference precision microphone were excellent (rs > .90). CONCLUSIONS: The headset microphones under test all showed the capability to track a wide range of diversity in the voice signal. Though the use of higher quality microphones that have demonstrated specifications is recommended for typical research and clinical purposes, low-cost electret microphones may be used to provide valid measures of voice, specifically when the same microphone and signal chain is used for the evaluation of pre- versus posttreatment change or intergroup comparisons.
Authors: Shaheen N Awan; Nelson Roy; Marie E Jetté; Geoffrey S Meltzner; Robert E Hillman Journal: Clin Linguist Phon Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.346
Authors: Gail B Kempster; Bruce R Gerratt; Katherine Verdolini Abbott; Julie Barkmeier-Kraemer; Robert E Hillman Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Jenny L Pierce; Kristine Tanner; Ray M Merrill; Lauren Shnowske; Nelson Roy Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.297