COMPARING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STANDARDS IN VOICE QUALITY JUDGMENTS
COMPARING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STANDARDS IN VOICE QUALITY JUDGMENTS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1044/jshr.3601.14
复制
发表时间：
1993-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
BERKE, GS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GERRATT, BR;KREIMAN, J;BERKE, GS
一个新的语音质量感知描述性框架(Kreiman，Gerratt，Kempster，Erman，&Berke，1993)指出，当听者在某个质量维度(例如，粗糙度)对声音进行评分时，他们会将呈现的刺激与内部标准或等级进行比较。假设，用明确的外部标准取代这些不稳定的内部标准应该会提高听众的可靠性。此外，该框架表明，声音质量的内部标准本质上是不稳定的，可能受到被判断的身体信号以外的其他因素的影响。在这些因素中，语境效应可能会影响做出判断的内部标准，从而导致听者的声音评级发生漂移。为了验证这些假设，我们要求12名临床医生使用两个量表来判断22个合成刺激的粗糙度：传统的5点等长间隔(EAI)量表和每个标度点都有明确锚定刺激的量表。刺激组包括相对较多的正常和轻微粗暴的声音。我们预测，随着时间的推移，对于EAI评级，这将导致适度粗糙刺激的感知粗糙度增加，但对于明确锚定的评级，这不会增加。使用锚定量表做出的评分明显比使用非锚定量表收集的评分更可靠。此外，正如预测的那样，在听课期间，非固定EAI量表的收视率明显向预期方向漂移，但固定收视率并没有。这些结果与我们的框架一致，并表明明确锚定的语音质量评估范例可能会改善研究和临床实践。
A new descriptive framework for voice quality perception (Kreiman, Gerratt, Kempster, Erman, & Berke, 1993) states that when listeners rate a voice on some quality dimension (e.g., roughness), they compare the stimulus presented to an internal standard or scale. Hypothetically, substituting explicit, external standards for these unstable internal standards should improve listener reliability. Further, the framework suggests that internal standards for vocal qualities are inherently unstable, and may be influenced by factors other than the physical signal being judged. Among these factors, context effects may cause drift in listeners' voice ratings by influencing the internal standard against which judgments are made. To test these hypotheses, we asked 12 clinicians to judge the roughness of 22 synthetic stimuli using two scales: a traditional 5-point equal-appearing interval (EAI) scale and a scale with explicit anchor stimuli for each scale point. The stimulus set included a relatively large number of normal and mildly rough voices. We predicted that this would produce an increase in the perceived roughness of moderately rough stimuli over time for the EAI ratings, but not for the explicitly anchored ratings. Ratings made using the anchored scale were significantly more reliable than those gathered using the unanchored paradigm. Further, as predicted, ratings on the unanchored EAI scale drifted significantly within a listening session in the direction expected, but ratings on the anchored scale did not. These results are consistent with our framework and suggest that explicitly anchored paradigms for voice quality evaluation might improve both research and clinical practice.