Effects of humanness and gender in voice processing

Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 137-143

  Lévêque, Yohana ^a   Giovanni, Antoine ^a,b   Schön, Daniele ^c  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b TIMONE HOSPITAL   (France)

^c AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Auditory discrimination; gender effect; motor representations; reaction time; singing voice

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; REACTION TIME; SEX DIFFERENCE; SINGING; SOUND DETECTION; TIME; VOICE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; REACTION TIME; SEX FACTORS; SINGING; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; TIME FACTORS; VOICE QUALITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84869437251     PISSN: 14015439     EISSN: 16512022     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14015439.2012.687763     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. PH, B radley P, C lemente P, C ornut G, C revier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the effi cacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 258 : 77 - 82
2. Wuyts F L, D e Bodt M S, M olenberghs G, R emacle M, H eylen L, Millet B, et al. The Dysphonia Severity Index: An objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43 : 796 - 809
3. Hakkesteegt MM, B rocaar M P, W ieringa M H. The applicability of the Dysphonia Severity Index and the Voice Handicap Index in evaluating effects of voice therapy and phonosurgery. J Voice. 2010; 24 : 199 - 205
4. Van Lierde K M, D e Ley S, C lement G, D e Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P. Outcome of laryngeal manual therapy in four Dutch adults with persistent moderate-to-severe vocal hyperfunction: A pilot study. J Voice. 2004; 18 : 467 - 74
5. Duffy O M, H azlett D E. The impact of preventive voice care programs for training teachers: A longitudinal study. J Voice. 2004; 18 : 63 - 70
6. Timmermans B, D e Bodt M, W uyts F, V an De Heyning P. Voice quality change in future professional voice users after 9 months of voice training. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2004; 261 : 1 - 5
7. van Ardenne N, V anderwegen J, V an Nuffelen G, D e Bodt M, Van De Heyning P. Medialization thyroplasty: Vocal outcome of silicone and titanum implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 268 : 101 - 7
8. Henry L R, H elou L B, S olomon N P, H oward R S, G urevich-Uvena J, Coppit G, et al. Functional voice outcomes after thyroidectomy: An assessment of the Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) after thyroidectomy. Surgery. 2010; 147 : 861 - 70
9. van Dinther JJ, De Bodt M, W uyts FL, V an De Heyning PH. Vocal fold surgery of benign infl ammatory lesions of Reinke ' s space: An outcome study in 47 subjects. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 266 : 1753 - 7
10. Awan SN, E nsslen AJ. A comparison of trained and untrained vocalists on the Dysphonia Severity Index. J Voice. 2010; 24 : 661 - 6
11. Timmermans B, D e Bodt MS, W uyts FL, B oudewijns A, Clement G, Peeters A, et al. Poor voice quality in future elite vocal performers and professional voice users. J Voice. 2002; 16 : 372 - 82
12. Hirano M. Clinical examination of voice. New York: Springer, 1981
13. Isshiki N, T akeuchi Y. F actor analysis of hoarseness. S tud Phonolog. 1970 ; 5 : 37 - 44
14. Hakkesteegt MM, W ieringa MH, B rocaar MP, M ulder PGH, Feenstra L. The Interobserver and test-retest variability of the Dysphonia Severity Index. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2008; 60 : 86 - 90
15. Hakkesteegt MM, B rocaar MP, W ieringa MH, F eenstra L. The relationship between perceptual evaluation and objective multiparametric evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Voice. 2008; 22 : 138 - 45
16. Bland JM, A ltman DG. S tatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 327 : 307 - 10
17. Bland J M, A ltman D G. M easuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8 : 135 - 60
18. Bland JM, A ltman DG. A greement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17 : 571 - 82
19. Titze IR, L iang H. C omparison of Fo extraction methods for high-precision voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36 : 1120 - 33
20. Pinto N B, T itze I R. U nifi cation of perturbation measures in speech signals. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 87 : 1278 - 89
21. Deliyski D. A coustic model and evaluation of pathological voice production. In EUROSPEECH' 93 : 1969 - 72
22. Carding PN, S teen IN, W ebb A, M ackenzie K, D eary IJ, Wilson JA. The reliability and sensitivity to change of acoustic measures of voice quality. Clin Otolaryngol. 2004; 29 : 538 - 44
23. Gelfer MP. S tability in phonational frequency range. J Commun Disord. 1989; 22 : 181 - 92
24. Gramming P, S undberg J, A kerlund L. V ariability of phonetograms. Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1991; 43 : 79 - 92
25. Lee L, S temple JC, K izer M. C onsistency of acoustic and aerodynamic measures of voice production over 28 days under various testing conditions. J Voice. 1999; 13 : 477 - 83
26. Bough ID J r, H euer R J, S ataloff R T, H ills J R, C ater J R. Intrasubject variability of objective voice measures. J Voice. 1996; 10 : 166 - 74
27. A Dwire, M cCauley R. R epeated measures of vocal fundamental frequency perturbation obtained using the Visi-Pitch. J Voice. 1995; 9 : 156 - 62