Effects of three parameters on speaking fundamental frequency.
Effects of three parameters on speaking fundamental frequency.
复制标题
三个参数对说话基频的影响。
DOI：
10.1121/1.420353
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. de Jong
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Hollien;P. Hollien;G. de Jong
说话基频水平和使用（SFF，F0）是许多研究人类语音和声音的研究人员感兴趣的。在这方面已经进行了大量的研究;共同的焦点包括SFF与婴儿哭声、年龄、性别、青少年声音变化、语言、种族、声音病理学等的关系。然而，仍然有一些关系没有得到很好的理解，其中三个将在本项目中得到解决。它们涉及长期持有的观念，即（1）SFF随时间推移而降低的长期趋势，（2）在这种类型的研究中使用大学生会产生偏见，因为他们与普通人的身体不同，（3）SFF可以根据不同类型的演讲（特别是口语阅读和即席演讲）系统地变化。对这些问题进行了实验评估，但只有某些假设得到了支持。也就是说，虽然发现了一些证据的一个长期的趋势，它似乎无关紧要，在过去的四分之一，本世纪;第二，虽然大学生被发现是略大于一个队列接近平均人口，只有轻微的声音差异被发现。最后，据观察，在一般情况下，口头阅读导致更高的平均SFF的自发讲话。然而，这种差异并不稳健，并且由于反转，所得到的度量似乎对单个扬声器没有很好的预测价值。
Speaking fundamental frequency levels and usage (SFF, F0) are of interest to many investigators who study human speech and voice. Substantial research in the area has been carried out; common foci include SFF as related to infant cry, age, gender, adolescent voice change, language, race, voice pathology, and so on. Yet there still are a number of relationships which are not well understood and three of them will be addressed in this project. They involve the long-held notions that (1) a secular trend exists with SFF being lowered over time, (2) the use of university students in research of this type will create bias because they are physically different from average individuals, and (3) SFF can vary systematically for different types of speech (especially for oral reading and extemporaneous speaking). Experiments assessing these questions were carried out, but only certain of the postulates were supported. That is, while some evidence of a secular trend was found, it appeared inconsequential during the past quarter of this century; second, although university students were found to be slightly larger than a cohort approaching the average population, only minor vocal differences were found. Finally, it was observed that, in general, oral reading resulted in higher mean SFF's than those for spontaneous speech. However, this difference was not robust and, due to reversals, the resulting metric did not appear to be of good predictive value for individual speakers.