Sensitivity of Acoustic Voice Quality Measures in Simulated Reverberation Conditions

Overview

Journal Bioengineering (Basel)

Date 2025 Jan 8

PMID 39768071

Authors

Ahmed M Yousef

Eric J Hunter

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Room reverberation can affect oral/aural communication and is especially critical in computer analysis of voice. High levels of reverberation can distort voice recordings, impacting the accuracy of quantifying voice production quality and vocal health evaluations. This study quantifies the impact of additive simulated reverberation on otherwise clean voice recordings as reflected in voice metrics commonly used for voice quality evaluation. From a larger database of voice recordings collected in a low-noise, low-reverberation environment, voice samples of a sustained [a:] vowel produced at two different speaker intents (comfortable and clear) by five healthy voice college-age female native English speakers were used. Using the reverb effect in Audacity, eight reverberation situations indicating a range of reverberation times (T20 between 0.004 and 1.82 s) were simulated and convolved with the original recordings. All voice samples, both original and reverberation-affected, were analyzed using freely available PRAAT software (version 6.0.13) to calculate five common voice parameters: jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), alpha ratio, and smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPs). Statistical analyses assessed the sensitivity and variations in voice metrics to a range of simulated room reverberation conditions. Results showed that jitter, HNR, and alpha ratio were stable at simulated reverberation times below T20 of 1 s, with HNR and jitter more stable in the clear vocal style. Shimmer was highly sensitive even at T20 of 0.53 s, which would reflect a common room, while CPPs remained stable across all simulated reverberation conditions. Understanding the sensitivity and stability of these voice metrics to a range of room acoustics effects allows for targeted use of certain metrics even in less controlled environments, enabling selective application of stable measures like CPPs and cautious interpretation of shimmer, ensuring more reliable and accurate voice assessments.

References

Rollins M, Leishman T, Whiting J, Hunter E, Eggett D . Effects of added absorption on the vocal exertions of talkers in a reverberant room. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019; 145(2):775. PMC: 6372363. DOI: 10.1121/1.5089891. View

Rodriguez-Parra M, Adrian J, Casado J . Voice therapy used to test a basic protocol for multidimensional assessment of dysphonia. J Voice. 2007; 23(3):304-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.05.001. View

Deliyski D, Evans M, Shaw H . Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice. 2005; 19(2):176-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.07.012. View

Wuyts F, De Bodt M, Molenberghs G, Remacle M, Heylen L, Millet B . The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43(3):796-809. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4303.796. View

Herzel H, Berry D, Titze I, Saleh M . Analysis of vocal disorders with methods from nonlinear dynamics. J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37(5):1008-19. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3705.1008. View

da Silva P, Master S, Andreoni S, Pontes P, Ramos L . Acoustic and long-term average spectrum measures to detect vocal aging in women. J Voice. 2010; 25(4):411-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.04.002. View

Werth K, Voigt D, Dollinger M, Eysholdt U, Lohscheller J . Clinical value of acoustic voice measures: a retrospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 267(8):1261-71. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-010-1214-2. View

Ferguson S, Kewley-Port D . Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: acoustic characteristics of vowels. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007; 50(5):1241-55. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/087). View

Laukkanen A, Rantala L . Does the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) Correlate with Perceived Creak and Strain in Normophonic Young Adult Finnish Females?. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2021; 74(1):62-69. DOI: 10.1159/000514796. View

10.

Ferrand C . Harmonics-to-noise ratio: an index of vocal aging. J Voice. 2003; 16(4):480-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0892-1997(02)00123-6. View

11.

Patel R, Awan S, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T . Recommended Protocols for Instrumental Assessment of Voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Expert Panel to Develop a Protocol for Instrumental Assessment of Vocal Function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018; 27(3):887-905. DOI: 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009. View

12.

Zhang Y, Jiang J, Wallace S, Zhou L . Comparison of nonlinear dynamic methods and perturbation methods for voice analysis. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 118(4):2551-60. DOI: 10.1121/1.2005907. View

13.

Batthyany C, Barsties V Latoszek B, Maryn Y . Meta-Analysis on the Validity of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. J Voice. 2022; 38(6):1527.e1-1527.e19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.04.022. View

14.

Marsano-Cornejo M, Roco-Videla A, Capona-Corbalan D, Silva-Harthey C . Variation of the acoustic parameter harmonic-to-noise ratio in relation to different background noise levels. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2020; 72(3):177-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.otorri.2020.04.007. View

15.

Yousef A, Deliyski D, Zayernouri M, Zacharias S, Naghibolhosseini M . Deep Learning-Based Analysis of Glottal Attack and Offset Times in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia. J Voice. 2023; . PMC: 11093885. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.10.011. View

16.

Azevedo L, Cardoso F, Reis C . [Acoustic analysis of prosody in females with Parkinson's disease: effect of L-dopa]. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2004; 61(4):995-8. DOI: 10.1590/s0004-282x2003000600020. View

17.

Awan S, Roy N, Jette M, Meltzner G, Hillman R . Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: Comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V. Clin Linguist Phon. 2010; 24(9):742-58. DOI: 10.3109/02699206.2010.492446. View

18.

Barsties B, Maryn Y . External Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 With Extended Representativity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016; 125(7):571-83. DOI: 10.1177/0003489416636131. View

19.

Warhurst S, Madill C, McCabe P, Ternstrom S, Yiu E, Heard R . Perceptual and Acoustic Analyses of Good Voice Quality in Male Radio Performers. J Voice. 2016; 31(2):259.e1-259.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.05.016. View

20.

Marsano-Cornejo M, Roco-Videla A . Variation of the acoustic parameters: f, jitter, shimmer and alpha ratio in relation with different background noise levels. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2022; 74(4):219-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.otoeng.2022.10.004. View