A Meta-Analysis: Acoustic Measurement of Roughness and Breathiness

Autor/inn/en	v. Latoszek, Ben Barsties; Maryn, Youri; Gerrits, Ellen; De Bodt, Marc
Titel	A Meta-Analysis: Acoustic Measurement of Roughness and Breathiness
Quelle	In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61 (2018) 2, S.298-323 (26 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1092-4388
DOI	10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0188
Schlagwörter	Meta Analysis; Acoustics; Correlation; Auditory Perception; Vowels; Measurement Techniques; Sciences; Literature + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Meta-analysis; Metaanalyse; Akustik; Korrelation; Auditive Wahrnehmung; Akustische Wahrnehmung; Messtechnik; Science; Wissenschaft; Literatur
Abstract	Purpose: Over the last 5 decades, many acoustic measures have been created to measure roughness and breathiness. The aim of this study is to present a meta-analysis of correlation coefficients (r) between auditory-perceptual judgment of roughness and breathiness and various acoustic measures in both sustained vowels and continuous speech. Method: Scientific literature reporting perceptual-acoustic correlations on roughness and breathiness were sought in 28 databases. Weighted average correlation coefficients (r[subscript w]) were calculated when multiple r-values were available for a specific acoustic marker. An r[subscript w] = 0.60 was the threshold for an acoustic measure to be considered acceptable. Results: From 103 studies of roughness and 107 studies of breathiness that were investigated, only 33 studies and 34 studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis on sustained vowels. Eighty-six acoustic measures were identified for roughness and 85 acoustic measures for breathiness on sustained vowels, in which 43 and 39 measures, respectively, yielded multiple r-values. Finally, only 14 measures for roughness and 12 measures for breathiness produced r[subscript w] = 0.60. On continuous speech, 4 measures for roughness and 21 measures for breathiness were identified, yielding 3 and 6 measures, respectively, with multiple r-values in which only 1 and 2, respectively, had r[subscript w] = 0.60. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that only a few acoustic parameters were determined as the best estimators for roughness and breathiness. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2200 Research Blvd #250, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel: 301-296-5700; Fax: 301-296-8580; e-mail: slhr@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01