Effects of environmental noise on computer-derived voice estimates from female speakers

Journal of Voice

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 146-153

  Perry, Cecyle K ^a   Ingrisano, Dennis R S ^b   Palmer, Melanie A ^a   McDonald, E J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer analysis; Female voices; Jitter; Noise; Perturbation; Shimmer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DATA ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FEMALE; HUMAN; NOISE; NORMAL HUMAN; SPEECH; VOICE;

EID: 0034047616     PISSN: 08921997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80021-1     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ingrisano DR-S, Perry CK, Jepson KR. Environmental noise: a threat to automatic voice analysis. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 1998;7(1):91-96.
2. Titze IR. Towards standards in acoustic analysis of voice. J Voice. 1994;8:1-7.
3. Bielamowicz S, Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Dauer MS, Berke GS. Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement. J Speech Hear Res. 1996;39:126-134.
4. Karnell MP, Chang A, Smith A, Hoffman H. Impact of signal type on validity of perturbation measures. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech Language and Hearing Association; November 1996; Seattle, Wash.
5. Titze IR. Workshop on acoustic voice analysis: summary statement. National Center for Voice and Speech for the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Februrary 1994; Denver, Colo.
6. Scherer RC, Vail VJ, Guo CG. Required number of tokens to determine representative voice perturbation values. J Speech Hear Res. 1995;38:1260-1269.
7. Titze IR, Horii Y, Scherer RC. Some technical considerations in voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30:252-260.
8. Karnell MP, Hall KD, Landahl KL. Comparison of fundamental frequency and perturbation measurements among three analysis systems. J Voice. 1995;9:383-393.
9. Titze IR, Winholtz WS. Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:1177-1190.
10. Jiang J, Lin E, Hanson D. Effect of tape recording on perturbation measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41:1031-1041.
11. Doherty ET, Shipp T. Tape recorder effects on jitter and shimmer extraction. J Speech Hear Res. 1988;31:485-490.
12. Geifer MP, Fendel DM. Comparisons of jitter, shimmer, and signal-to-noise ratio from directly digitized versus taped voice samples. J Voice. 1995;9:378-382.
13. Perry CK, Ingrisano DR-S, Blair, WB. The influence of recording systems on jitter and shimmer estimates. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 1996;5(2):86-90.
14. Winholtz WS, Titze IR. Suitability of minidisc (MD) recordings for voice perturbation analysis. J Voice. 1998;12:138-142.
15. Kay Elemetrics Corporation. Operations Manual: Multi-dimensional voice program (MDVP) model 4305. Lincoln Park, NJ: Author; 1993.
16. Colton RH, Casper JK. Understanding voice disorders: a physiological perpective for diagnosis and treatment. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
17. Klingholz F, Martin F. Quantitative spectral evaluation of shimmer and jitter. J Speech Hear Res. 1985;28:169-174.
18. Hanson W, Emanuel FW. Spectral noise and vocal roughness relationships in adults with laryngeal pathology. J Comm Disord. 1979;12:113-124.
19. Yanagihara N. Significance of harmonic changes and noise components in hoarseness. J Speech Hear Res. 1967;10:531-541.
20. Haji T, Horiguchi S, Baer T, Gould WJ. Frequency and amplitude perturbation analysis of electroglottograph during sustained phonation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986;80:58-62.
21. Ingrisano, DR-S, Weismer G, Schuckers G. Sex identification of preschool children's voices. Folia Phoniatr. 1980;32: 61-69.
22. Gelfand SA. Hearing: An Introduction of Psychological and Physiological Acoustics. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1981.
23. Hillenbrand J. A methodological study of perturbation and additive noise in synthetically generated voice signals. J Speech Hear Res. 1987;30:448-461.