No AccessSIG 19 Speech ScienceResearch Article19 Jun 2019

A Comparative Normative Study Between Multidimensional Voice Program, Praat, and TF32

    Purpose

    The instrumental assessment of voice quality is influenced by several factors, including the type of recording equipment used to capture the acoustic signal and the algorithm used by the acoustic analysis software program (AASP) to analyze the corresponding waveform. In this study, various acoustic measures were compared across 3 AASPs commonly used in research, education, and clinical practice: Multidimensional Voice Program (MDVP) by Computerized Speech Lab, Praat, and TF32.

    Method

    Sustained vowel phonations for the corner vowels /ɑ/, /æ/, /i/, and /u/ were captured and analyzed for 50 healthy subjects. Correlations and inferential and descriptive statistics are reported for measures of mean fundamental frequency (mean F0), standard deviation of F0 (SD F0), harmonic-to-noise ratio, jitter (i.e., short-term frequency perturbation), and shimmer (i.e., short-term amplitude perturbation).

    Results

    Results indicate statistically significant differences between the 3 AASPs for most of the acoustic variables of interest, with MDVP consistently yielding higher values than Praat and TF32 for SD F0, jitter, and shimmer. For harmonic-to-noise ratio, MDVP consistently yielded lower values than the comparison programs. No significant program differences were identified for mean F0.

    Conclusion

    Results demonstrate that, although moderate to high correlations were found for values obtained between the various programs, the reported numerical values vary greatly. It is not advisable that voice data reports be combined or compared across AASPs.

    References

    • Bielamowicz, S., Kreiman, J., Gerratt, B. R., Dauer, M. S., & Berke, G. S. (1996). Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 126–134.
    • Boersma, P. (1993). Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound.In Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences (Vol. 17, pp. 97–110).
    • Boersma, P. (2009). Should jitter be measured by peak picking or by waveform matching?.Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 61, 305–308.
    • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2010). Praat (5.1.32) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat
    • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Manual]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat
    • Burris, C., Vorperian, H. K., Fourakis, M., Kent, R. D., & Bolt, D. M. (2014). Quantitative and descriptive comparison of four acoustic analysis systems: Vowel measurements.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 26–45.
    • Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (1986). Influential observations, high leverage points, and outliers in linear regression.Statistical Science, 1(3), 379–393.
    • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Deliyski, D. D., Evans, M. K., & Shaw, H. S. (2005). Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements.Journal of Voice, 19, 176–186.
    • Deliyski, D. D., Shaw, H. S., & Evans, M. K. (2005a). Influence of sampling rate on accuracy and reliability of acoustic voice analysis.Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 30, 55–62.
    • Deliyski, D. D., Shaw, H. S., & Evans, M. K. (2005b). Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements.Journal of Voice, 19, 15–28.
    • Deliyski, D. D., Shaw, H. S., Evans, M. K., & Vesselinov, R. (2006). Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis.Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 58, 274–288.
    • GoldWave, Inc. (2015). GoldWave (6.15) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.goldwave.com
    • Grillo, E. U., Magliano, R., & DiSario, J. (2013). Agreement among Computerized Speech Lab, Praat, and WaveSurfer in determining formant frequencies.Annual Publication of the Pennsylvania Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 42–45.
    • Ingram, K., Bunta, F., & Ingram, D. (2004). Digital data collection and analysis: Application for clinical practice.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 112–121.
    • IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0). Armonk, NY: Author.
    • Karnell, M. P., Hall, K. D., & Landahl, K. L. (1995). Comparison of fundamental frequency and perturbation measurements among three analysis systems.Journal of Voice, 9, 383–393.
    • Kay Elemetrics. (1996). Computerized Speech Lab (4150B). Lincoln Park, NJ: KayPentax.
    • KayPENTAX. (2008). Instruction manual: Stroboscopy systems and components. Lincoln Park, NJ.
    • Kent, R. D., Weismer, G., Kent, J. F., Vorperian, H. K., & Duffy, J. R. (1999). Acoustic studies of dysarthric speech: Methods, progress and potential.Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 141–186.
    • Maryn, Y., Corthals, P., De Bodt, M., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Deliyski, D. (2009). Perturbation measures of voice: A comparative study between Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Praat.Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 61, 217–226.
    • Milenkovic, P. (2010). TF32 [Computer software]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://userpages.chorus.net/cspeech
    • Rabinov, C. R., Kreiman, J., Gerratt, B. R., & Bielamowicz, S. (1995). Comparing reliability of perceptual ratings of roughness and acoustic measure of jitter.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 26–32.
    • Read, C., Buder, E. H., & Kent, R. D. (1990). Speech analysis systems: A survey.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 363–374.
    • Read, C., Buder, E. H., & Kent, R. D. (1992). Speech analysis systems: An evaluation.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 314–332.
    • Smits, I., Ceuppens, P., & De Bodt, M. S. (2005). A comparative study of acoustic voice measurements by means of Dr. Speech and Computerized Speech Lab.Journal of Voice, 19, 187–196.
    • Titze, I. R., Solomon, N. P., Luschei, E. S., & Hirano, M. (1994). Interference between normal vibrato and artificial stimulation of laryngeal muscles at near vibrato rates.Journal of Voice, 8(3), 215–223.
    • Titze, I. R., & Winholtz, W. S. (1993). Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1177–1190.
    • Tukey, J. W. (1970). Exploratory data analysis (Preliminary ed.). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
    • Vogel, A. P., & Maruff, P. (2008). Comparison of voice acquisition methodologies in speech research.Behavior Research Methods, 40, 982–987.
    • Vogel, A. P., Maruff, P., Snyder, P. J., & Mundt, J. C. (2009). Standardization of pitch-range settings in voice acoustic analysis.Behavior Research Methods, 41, 318–324.
    • Winholtz, W. S., & Titze, I. R. (1998). Suitability of minidisc (MD) recording for voice perturbation analysis.Journal of Voice, 12, 138–142.
    • Wolfe, V., & Martin, D. (1997). Acoustic correlates of dysphonia: Type and severity.Journal of Communication Disorders, 30, 403–415.

    Additional Resources