![]() ![]() Pitch strength was the most accurate predictor of breathiness matching (r2 = 0.84-0.94 across vowels), and log-transformed autocorrelation peak was the most accurate predictor of roughness matching (r2 = 0.59-0.83 across vowels).īreathiness is more consistently represented across vowels for dysphonic voices than roughness. The perceived roughness of /a/ was higher than /i/ or /u/ by 3 dB modulation depth. For roughness judgments, the effect of vowel was larger. Averaged over all talkers and listeners, breathiness judgments for /a/, /i/, and /u/ were -11.6, -11.2, and -12.2 dB noise-to-signal ratio, respectively. For breathiness judgments, the effect of vowel was small. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were high for both the breathiness and the roughness perceptual tasks. Measures of pitch strength, cepstral peak, and autocorrelation peak were applied to models of the perceptual data. For primarily breathy voices, perceived breathiness was judged, and for primarily rough voices, perceived roughness was judged by the same group of 10 listeners using an SVMT with five replicates per condition. Sustained phonations of /a/, /i/, and /u/ from 20 dysphonic talkers (10 with primarily breathy voices and 10 with primarily rough voices) were selected from the University of Florida Dysphonic Voice Database. This study aims to determine the sensitivity of perceptual and computational correlates of breathy and rough voice quality (VQ) across multiple vowel categories using single-variable matching tasks (SVMTs). Journal of Voice ( IF 2.009), Pub Date : , DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.12.018 Supraja Anand,Mark D Skowronski,Rahul Shrivastav,David A Eddins OBJECTIVES ![]() Perceptual and Quantitative Assessment of Dysphonia Across Vowel Categories. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |