| pubmed-article:8820704 | pubmed:abstractText | Dysphonic voices are often analyzed using automated voice analysis software. However, the reliability of acoustic measures obtained from these programs remains unknown, particularly when they are applied to pathological voices. This study compared perturbation measures from CSpeech, Computerized Speech Laboratory, SoundScope, and a hand marking voice analysis system. Sustained vowels from 29 male and 21 female speakers with mild to severe dysphonia were digitized, and fundamental frequency (F0), jitter, shimmer, and harmonics- or signal-to-noise ratios were computed. Commercially available acoustical analysis programs agreed well, but not perfectly, in their measures of F0. Measures of perturbation in the various analysis packages use different algorithms, provide results in different units, and often yield values for voices that violate the assumption of quasi-periodicity. As a result, poor rank order correlations between programs using similar measures of perturbation were noted. Because measures of aperiodicity apparently cannot be reliably applied to voices that are even mildly aperiodic, we question their utility in quantifying vocal quality, especially in pathological voices. | lld:pubmed |
