Quantitative and Descriptive Comparison of Four Acoustic Analysis Systems: Vowel Measurements

被引:34
作者
Burris, Carlyn [1 ]
Vorperian, Houri K. [1 ]
Fourakis, Marios [1 ]
Kent, Ray D. [1 ]
Bolt, Daniel M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI 53706 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH | 2014年 / 57卷 / 01期
关键词
acoustics; effectiveness; speech; technology; SPEECH ANALYSIS SYSTEMS; FORMANT; FREQUENCY; BANDWIDTH;
D O I
10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0103)
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Purpose: This study examines accuracy and comparability of 4 trademarked acoustic analysis software packages (AASPs): Praat, WaveSurfer, TF32, and CSL by using synthesized and natural vowels. Features of AASPs are also described. Method: Synthesized and natural vowels were analyzed using each of the AASP's default settings to secure 9 acoustic measures: fundamental frequency (F0), formant frequencies (F1-F4), and formant bandwidths (B1-B4). The discrepancy between the software measured values and the input values (synthesized, previously reported, and manual measurements) was used to assess comparability and accuracy. Basic AASP features are described. Results: Results indicate that Praat, WaveSurfer, and TF32 generate accurate and comparable F0 and F1-F4 data for synthesized vowels and adult male natural vowels. Results varied by vowel for women and children, with some serious errors. Bandwidth measurements by AASPs were highly inaccurate as compared with manual measurements and published data on formant bandwidths. Conclusions: Values of F0 and F1-F4 are generally consistent and fairly accurate for adult vowels and for some child vowels using the default settings in Praat, WaveSurfer, and TF32. Manipulation of default settings yields improved output values in TF32 and CSL. Caution is recommended especially before accepting F1-F4 results for children and B1-B4 results for all speakers.
引用
收藏
页码:26 / 45
页数:20
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2017, WAVESURFER VERSION 1
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2010, TIME FREQUENCY ANAL
  • [3] Baken Ronald., 1999, Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice, V2a
  • [4] Comparison of voice analysis systems for perturbation measurement
    Bielamowicz, S
    Kreiman, J
    Gerratt, BR
    Dauer, MS
    Berke, GS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING RESEARCH, 1996, 39 (01): : 126 - 134
  • [5] Boersma P., 2010, PRAAT VERSION 5 1 32
  • [6] Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements
    Deliyski, DD
    Evans, MK
    Shaw, HS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VOICE, 2005, 19 (02) : 176 - 186
  • [7] FANT C G, 1962, Logos, V5, P3
  • [8] Hawks J. W., 1998, J ACOUST SOC AM, V104, P1778
  • [9] A FORMANT BANDWIDTH ESTIMATION PROCEDURE FOR VOWEL SYNTHESIS
    HAWKS, JW
    MILLER, JD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1995, 97 (02) : 1343 - 1344
  • [10] ACOUSTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN ENGLISH VOWELS
    HILLENBRAND, J
    GETTY, LA
    CLARK, MJ
    WHEELER, K
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1995, 97 (05) : 3099 - 3111