hh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Exploring the feasibility of smart phone microphone for measurement of acoustic voice parameters and voice pathology screening
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, ISSN 0937-4477, E-ISSN 1434-4726, Vol. 272, no 11, 3391-3399 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The objective of this study is to evaluate the reliability of acoustic voice parameters obtained using smart phone (SP) microphones and investigate the utility of use of SP voice recordings for voice screening. Voice samples of sustained vowel/a/obtained from 118 subjects (34 normal and 84 pathological voices) were recorded simultaneously through two microphones: oral AKG Perception 220 microphone and SP Samsung Galaxy Note3 microphone. Acoustic voice signal data were measured for fundamental frequency, jitter and shimmer, normalized noise energy (NNE), signal to noise ratio and harmonic to noise ratio using Dr. Speech software. Discriminant analysis-based Correct Classification Rate (CCR) and Random Forest Classifier (RFC) based Equal Error Rate (EER) were used to evaluate the feasibility of acoustic voice parameters classifying normal and pathological voice classes. Lithuanian version of Glottal Function Index (LT_GFI) questionnaire was utilized for self-assessment of the severity of voice disorder. The correlations of acoustic voice parameters obtained with two types of microphones were statistically significant and strong (r = 0.73–1.0) for the entire measurements. When classifying into normal/pathological voice classes, the Oral-NNE revealed the CCR of 73.7 % and the pair of SP-NNE and SP-shimmer parameters revealed CCR of 79.5 %. However, fusion of the results obtained from SP voice recordings and GFI data provided the CCR of 84.60 % and RFC revealed the EER of 7.9 %, respectively. In conclusion, measurements of acoustic voice parameters using SP microphone were shown to be reliable in clinical settings demonstrating high CCR and low EER when distinguishing normal and pathological voice classes, and validated the suitability of the SP microphone signal for the task of automatic voice analysis and screening.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2015. Vol. 272, no 11, 3391-3399 p.
Keyword [en]
Acoustic analysis, Voice screening, Smart phone
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-29488DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3708-4ISI: 000361540600043PubMedID: 26162450Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84942133145OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hh-29488DiVA: diva2:855195
Note

This study was supported by grant VP1-3.1-ŠMM-10-V-02-030 from the Ministry of Education and Science of Republic of Lithuania.

Available from: 2015-09-19 Created: 2015-09-19 Last updated: 2016-11-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Verikas, Antanas
By organisation
CAISR - Center for Applied Intelligent Systems Research
In the same journal
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 82 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf