Mobile Communication Devices, Ambient Noise, and Acoustic Voice Measures
Mobile Communication Devices, Ambient Noise, and Acoustic Voice Measures
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.07.023
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Vanspauwen, Robby
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maryn, Youri;Ysenbaert, Femke;Vanspauwen, Robby
目标。使用移动通信设备（mcd，即智能手机和平板电脑）移动的能力可能会导致麦克风到嘴的定位和在噪声密集的环境中使用的差异，从而影响声学语音测量的可靠性。本研究考察了六种录音设备在低噪音和不断增加的噪音背景下各种声学测量的差异。来自50名声音障碍患者的连续语音链和持续元音链（以沉默间隔隔开）被辐射并在具有5个mcd和一个高质量录音系统的消声室中重新录制。这些记录是在一种没有环境噪声的条件下和四种环境噪声增加的条件下获得的。在Praat程序中总共获得了10个声学语音标记。在Bonferroni校正后，对相关样本使用Friedman重复测量检验和事后Wilcoxon符号秩检验来评估mcd和噪声条件之间的差异。(1)除基频中位数和7项不显著差异外，MCD样本在最小环境噪声下的声学指标均显著高于临床参考样本。(2)除中位基频、局部抖动和抖动rap外，参考系统记录样品的所有声学测量都受到室内噪声水平的显著影响。基频能够抵抗记录系统、环境噪声及其组合。然而，所有其他测量都受到记录系统和噪声条件的影响，尤其是它们的组合，通常已经处于参考/基线条件，没有增加环境噪声。因此，有必要谨慎对待mcd作为临床记录工具的实施，特别是在应用于治疗结果评估时。
Objectives. The ability to move with mobile communication devices (MCDs; ie, smartphones and tablet computers) may induce differences in microphone-to-mouth positioning and use in noise-packed environments, and thus influence reliability of acoustic voice measurements. This study investigated differences in various acoustic voice measures between six recording equipments in backgrounds with low and increasing noise levels.Methods. One chain of continuous speech and sustained vowel from 50 subjects with voice disorders (all separated by silence intervals) was radiated and re-recorded in an anechoic chamber with five MCDs and one high-quality recording system. These recordings were acquired in one condition without ambient noise and in four conditions with increased ambient noise. A total of 10 acoustic voice markers were obtained in the program Praat. Differences between MCDs and noise condition were assessed with Friedman repeated-measures test and posthoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, both for related samples, after Bonferroni correction.Results. (1) Except median fundamental frequency and seven nonsignificant differences, MCD samples have significantly higher acoustic markers than clinical reference samples in minimal environmental noise. (2) Except median fundamental frequency, jitter local, and jitter rap, all acoustic measures on samples recorded with the reference system experienced significant influence from room noise levels.Conclusions. Fundamental frequency is resistant to recording system, environmental noise, and their combination. All other measures, however, were impacted by both recording system and noise condition, and especially by their combination, often already in the reference/baseline condition without added ambient noise. Caution is therefore warranted regarding implementation of MCDs as clinical recording tools, particularly when applied for treatment outcomes assessments.