Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Experimental Study of Comfortable Pitch and Loudness with Target Matching: Effects on Electroglottographic and Acoustic Measures

  • Choi, Seong Hee (Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology and Research Institute of Biomimetic Sensory Control, College of Medical Sciences, Catholic University of Daegu)
  • Received : 2012.08.11
  • Accepted : 2012.11.14
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was designed to examine comfort levels of pitch and loudness with target matching and their effects on electroglottographic (EGG) and acoustic measures. Twelve speakers, six males and six females, were instructed to produce /a/ sustained vowel for three seconds at a comfortable pitch and loudness level without any instruction and with a target matching procedure of either a certain f0 or SPL separately with visual and auditory feedback. The range of pitch for females and males were presented by progressing up and down randomly at intervals of 5Hz from 150 Hz to 310 Hz (total 33 frequency targets) and from 85 Hz to 190 Hz (total 22 frequency targets), respectively. The loudness levels were 65, 75, 85, 95 dB (total of four intensity targets) for both males and females. Subjective estimations of comfortable levels were obtained using a 10-point equal-appearing interval rating scale following each phonation. The results showed that males and females demonstrated similar trends in loudness levels with greatest comfort at 75 dB, whereas pitch comfort ratings showed a greater variability with females having a wider range with target matching. In the comfort levels of individuals, most male and female speakers rated higher comfort at soft, rather than loud phonations. On the other hand, most male speakers perceived highest comfort levels below the comfort pitch levels they phonated under natural conditions. Higher frequency ranges, however, were perceived to be more comfortable than those of natural condition in most female speakers, although the comfortable pitch levels in spontaneous phonations were within the comfort level ranges determined by targeted phonations. When comparing acoustic (%jitter, %shimmer, SNR) and EGG measures (CQ%) between spontaneous comfortable phonations and targeted phonations produced by the same subject at similar f0 and intensity, no significant differences were observed (p>0.05). Thus, target matching procedures may be considered a compatible and alternative method to reduce the variability of comfortable pitch and loudness levels by eliciting consistent comfortable phonations.

Keywords

References

  1. Boone, D. R. & McFarlane, S. C. (2002). The Voice and Voice therapy. 7thed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Sapienza, C. & Ruddy B. H (2009). Voice disorders. Plural Publishing.
  3. Brown, W. S. Jr., Murry, T. & Hughes, D. (1976). Comfortable effort level: an experimental variable, Journal of Acoustical Society America, Vol. 60(3), 696-9. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381141
  4. Brown, W. S. Jr., Morris, R. J. & Murry, T. (1996). Comfortable effort level revisited, Journal of Voice, Vol. 10(3), 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(96)80011-7
  5. Brown, W. S. Jr. & Shrivastav, R. (2007). Comfortable effort level in young children's speech, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, Vol. 59(5), 227-33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000104460
  6. Zraick, R. I., Marshall, W., Smith-Olinde, L. & Montague, J. C. (2004). The effect of task on determination of habitual loudness, Journal of Voice, Vol. 18(2), 176-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.09.005
  7. Zraick, R. I., Gentry, M. A., Smith-Olinde, L. & Gregg, B. A. (2006). The effect of speaking context on elicitation of habitual pitch, Journal of Voice, Vol. 20(4), 545-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.08.008
  8. Britto, A. I. & Doyle, P. C. (1990). A comparison of habitual and derived optimal voice fundamental frequency values in normal young adult speakers, Journal of Speech Hearing Disorder, Vol. 55(3), 476-84. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5503.476
  9. Pronovost, W. (1942). An experimental study of methods for determining natural and habitual pitch, Speech monographs, Vol. 9, 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637754209390066
  10. Murry, T., Brown, W. S. Jr. & Morris, R. J. (1995). Patterns of fundamental frequency for three types of voice samples, Journal of Voice, Vol. 9(3), 282-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80235-8
  11. Coleman, R. F. & Markham, I. W. (1991). Normal variations in habitual pitch, Journal of Voice, Vol. 5(2), 173-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80181-X
  12. Lee, L., Stemple, J. C. & Kizer, M. (1999). Consistency of acoustic and aerodynamic measures of voice production over 28 days under various testing conditions, Journal of Voice, Vol. 13(4), 477-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80003-4
  13. Carding, P., Drinnan, M., Brockmann, M. & Storck, C. (2008). Voice Loudness and Gender Effects on Jitter and Shimmer in Healthy Adults, Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, Vol. 51, 1152-1160 https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0208)
  14. Pabon, J. P. H. (1991). Objective acoustic voice-quality parameters in the computer phonetogram, Journal of Voice, 203-216.
  15. Parbon, J. H. P. & Plomp, R. (1988). Automatic phonetogram recording supplemented with acoustical voice quality parameters, Journal of Speech Hearing Research, Vol. 31, 710-722. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3104.710
  16. Gelfer, M. P. (1995). Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel selection: effects on measures of phonatory stability, Journal of Speech Hearing Research, Vol. 38(6), 1189-98. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3806.1189
  17. Vogel, A. P., Maruff, P., Snyder, P. J. & Mundt, J. C. (2009). Standardization of pitch range settings in voice acoustic analysis, Behavioral Research Methods, Vol. 41(2), 318-324. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.318
  18. Titze (1994). The G. Paul Moore Lecture. Toward standards in acoustic analysis of voice, Journal of Voice, Vol. 8(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80313-3
  19. Rovirosa, A., Ascaso, C., Abellana, R., Martinez-Celdran E., Ortega, A., Velasco, M., Bonet, M., Herrero, T., Arenas, M., & Biete, A. (2008). Acoustic voice analysis in different phonetic contexts after larynx radiotherapy for T1 vocal cord carcinoma, ClinicalTranslational Oncology, Vol. 10(3), 163-74.
  20. Guimaraes, I. & Abberton, E. (2005). Fundamental frequency in speakers of Portuguese for different voice samples, Journal of Voice, Vol. 19(4), 592-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.11.004
  21. Ramig, L.A., Scherer, R. C., TitzeI. R., & Ringel, S. P. (1988). Acoustic analysis of voices of patients with neurologic disease: rational and preliminary data, The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngoogy, Vol. 97(2 pt 1), pp. 164-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348948809700214
  22. Zwirner, P., Murry, T. & Woodson, G. E. (1991). Phonatory function of neurologically impaired patients, Journal of Communication Disorders, Vol. 24(4), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(91)90004-3
  23. Childers, D. G., Hicks, D. M., Moore, G. P., Eskenazi, L. & Lalwani, A. L. (1990). Electroglottography and vocal fold physiology, Journal of Speech Hearing Research, Vol. 33(2), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3302.245
  24. Peterson, K. L., Verdolini, K., Barkmeier, J. M. & Hoffman, H. T. (1994). Comparison of aerodynamic and electroglottographic parameters in evaluating clinically relevant voicing patterns, Annal Otolaryngol Rhinology Laryngology, Vol. 103, 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949410300501
  25. Verdolini, K., Chan, R., Titze, I. R., Hess, M. & Bierhals, W. (1998). Correspondence of electroglottographic closed quotient to vocal fold impact stress in excised canine larynges, Journal of Voice, Vol.12(4), 415-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(98)80050-7
  26. Hanson, D. G., Gerratt, B. R. & Berke, G. S. (1990). Frequency, intensity, and target matching effects on photoglottographic measures of open quotient and speed quotient, Journal of Speech Hearing Research, Vol. 33(1), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3301.45
  27. Milenkovic, P. (2001). TF 32 User's Manual, Madison, WI.
  28. Awan, S. N (1993). Super imposition of speaking voice characteristics and phonetograms in untrained and trained vocal groups," Journal of Voice, Vol.7(1), 30-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80109-2
  29. Wolfe, V. I., Ratusnik, D. L., Smith, F. H. & Northrop, G. E. (1990). Intonation and fundamental frequency in male-tofemale transsexuals, Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Vol. 55, 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5501.43
  30. Gelfer, M. P. & Schofield, K. J. (2000). Comparison of acoustic and perceptual measures of voice in male-to-female transsexuals perceived as female versus those perceived as male, Journal of Voice, Vol. 14(1), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80092-2
  31. Brockmann, M., Storck, C., Carding, P. N. & Drinnan, M. J. (2008). Voice loudness and gender effects on jitter and shimmer in healthy adults, Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, Vol. 51(5), 1152-60. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0208)
  32. Aithal, V. U., Bellur, R., John, S., Varghese, C. & Guddattu, V. (2012). Acoustic analysis of voice in normal and high pitch phonation: a comparative study, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, Vol. 64(1), 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000333255