Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2012
Identifying a comparison for matching rough voice quality.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Patel Sona, Shrivastav Rahul, Eddins David A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Perceptual estimates of voice quality obtained using rating scales are subject to contextual biases that influence how individuals assign numbers to estimate the magnitude of vocal quality. Because rating scales are commonly used in clinical settings, assessments of voice quality are also subject to the limitations of these scales. Instead, a matching task can be used to obtain objective measures of voice quality, thereby facilitating model development and tools for clinical use.
METHOD: Twenty-seven individuals participated in a rating task or at least 1 of 3 matching tests (named after their modulation functions: SINE, SQUARE, POWER) to quantify the degree of roughness in dysphonic voice stimuli. Participants evaluated the roughness of 34 voice samples using an amplitude-modulated complex carrier.
RESULTS: The matching thresholds were highly correlated with the ratings estimates. Reliability of thresholds did not significantly differ across tasks, but linear regressions showed that the POWER test resulted in larger perceptual distances.
CONCLUSIONS: A matching task can be used to obtain reliable estimates of roughness in dysphonic voices. The POWER comparison is recommended because the variability in matching thresholds across the range of roughness was evenly distributed, and the perceptual distances between stimuli were maximized.
METHOD: Twenty-seven individuals participated in a rating task or at least 1 of 3 matching tests (named after their modulation functions: SINE, SQUARE, POWER) to quantify the degree of roughness in dysphonic voice stimuli. Participants evaluated the roughness of 34 voice samples using an amplitude-modulated complex carrier.
RESULTS: The matching thresholds were highly correlated with the ratings estimates. Reliability of thresholds did not significantly differ across tasks, but linear regressions showed that the POWER test resulted in larger perceptual distances.
CONCLUSIONS: A matching task can be used to obtain reliable estimates of roughness in dysphonic voices. The POWER comparison is recommended because the variability in matching thresholds across the range of roughness was evenly distributed, and the perceptual distances between stimuli were maximized.