Maryn Youri, Corthals Paul, De Bodt Marc, Van Cauwenberge Paul, Deliyski Dimitar
Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Sint-Jan General Hospital, Bruges, Belgium.
Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(4):217-26. doi: 10.1159/000227999. Epub 2009 Jul 9.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Frequency and amplitude perturbations are inherent in voice acoustic signals. The assessment of voice perturbation is influenced by several factors, including the type of recording equipment used and the measurement extraction algorithm applied. In the present study, perturbation measures provided by two computer systems (a purpose-built professional voice analysis apparatus and a personal computer-based system for acoustic voice assessment) and two computer programs (Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Praat) were compared.
Correlations and inferential statistics for seven perturbation measures (absolute jitter, percent jitter, relative average perturbation, pitch perturbation quotient, shimmer in decibels, percent shimmer, and amplitude perturbation quotient) in 50 subjects with various voice disorders are presented.
Results indicate statistically significant differences between the two systems and programs, with the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program yielding consistently higher measures than Praat. Furthermore, correlation analyses show weak to moderate proportional relationships between the two systems and weak to strong proportional relationships between the two programs.
Based on the literature and the proportional relationships and differences between the two systems and programs under consideration in this study, one can state that one can hardly compare frequency perturbation outcomes across systems and programs and amplitude perturbation outcomes across systems.
背景/目的：频率和幅度扰动是语音声学信号固有的特性。语音扰动的评估受多种因素影响，包括所使用的录音设备类型和应用的测量提取算法。在本研究中，对两个计算机系统（一个专门构建的专业语音分析仪器和一个基于个人计算机的声学语音评估系统）以及两个计算机程序（多维度语音程序和Praat）提供的扰动测量结果进行了比较。
给出了50名患有各种语音障碍的受试者的七种扰动测量指标（绝对抖动、百分比抖动、相对平均扰动、音高扰动商、以分贝为单位的闪烁、百分比闪烁和幅度扰动商）的相关性和推断统计结果。
结果表明两个系统和程序之间存在统计学上的显著差异，多维度语音程序产生的测量值始终高于Praat。此外，相关性分析显示两个系统之间存在弱到中等的比例关系，两个程序之间存在弱到强的比例关系。
基于本研究中所考虑的文献以及两个系统和程序之间的比例关系和差异，可以说很难在不同系统和程序之间比较频率扰动结果，也很难在不同系统之间比较幅度扰动结果。
