{"title":"模拟混响条件下声质量测量的灵敏度。","authors":"Ahmed M Yousef, Eric J Hunter","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering11121253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Room reverberation can affect oral/aural communication and is especially critical in computer analysis of voice. High levels of reverberation can distort voice recordings, impacting the accuracy of quantifying voice production quality and vocal health evaluations. This study quantifies the impact of additive simulated reverberation on otherwise clean voice recordings as reflected in voice metrics commonly used for voice quality evaluation. From a larger database of voice recordings collected in a low-noise, low-reverberation environment, voice samples of a sustained [a:] vowel produced at two different speaker intents (comfortable and clear) by five healthy voice college-age female native English speakers were used. Using the reverb effect in Audacity, eight reverberation situations indicating a range of reverberation times (T20 between 0.004 and 1.82 s) were simulated and convolved with the original recordings. All voice samples, both original and reverberation-affected, were analyzed using freely available PRAAT software (version 6.0.13) to calculate five common voice parameters: jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), alpha ratio, and smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPs). Statistical analyses assessed the sensitivity and variations in voice metrics to a range of simulated room reverberation conditions. Results showed that jitter, HNR, and alpha ratio were stable at simulated reverberation times below T20 of 1 s, with HNR and jitter more stable in the clear vocal style. Shimmer was highly sensitive even at T20 of 0.53 s, which would reflect a common room, while CPPs remained stable across all simulated reverberation conditions. Understanding the sensitivity and stability of these voice metrics to a range of room acoustics effects allows for targeted use of certain metrics even in less controlled environments, enabling selective application of stable measures like CPPs and cautious interpretation of shimmer, ensuring more reliable and accurate voice assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"11 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11673399/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity of Acoustic Voice Quality Measures in Simulated Reverberation Conditions.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed M Yousef, Eric J Hunter\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bioengineering11121253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Room reverberation can affect oral/aural communication and is especially critical in computer analysis of voice. High levels of reverberation can distort voice recordings, impacting the accuracy of quantifying voice production quality and vocal health evaluations. This study quantifies the impact of additive simulated reverberation on otherwise clean voice recordings as reflected in voice metrics commonly used for voice quality evaluation. From a larger database of voice recordings collected in a low-noise, low-reverberation environment, voice samples of a sustained [a:] vowel produced at two different speaker intents (comfortable and clear) by five healthy voice college-age female native English speakers were used. Using the reverb effect in Audacity, eight reverberation situations indicating a range of reverberation times (T20 between 0.004 and 1.82 s) were simulated and convolved with the original recordings. All voice samples, both original and reverberation-affected, were analyzed using freely available PRAAT software (version 6.0.13) to calculate five common voice parameters: jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), alpha ratio, and smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPs). Statistical analyses assessed the sensitivity and variations in voice metrics to a range of simulated room reverberation conditions. Results showed that jitter, HNR, and alpha ratio were stable at simulated reverberation times below T20 of 1 s, with HNR and jitter more stable in the clear vocal style. Shimmer was highly sensitive even at T20 of 0.53 s, which would reflect a common room, while CPPs remained stable across all simulated reverberation conditions. Understanding the sensitivity and stability of these voice metrics to a range of room acoustics effects allows for targeted use of certain metrics even in less controlled environments, enabling selective application of stable measures like CPPs and cautious interpretation of shimmer, ensuring more reliable and accurate voice assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioengineering\",\"volume\":\"11 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11673399/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11121253\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11121253","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sensitivity of Acoustic Voice Quality Measures in Simulated Reverberation Conditions.
Room reverberation can affect oral/aural communication and is especially critical in computer analysis of voice. High levels of reverberation can distort voice recordings, impacting the accuracy of quantifying voice production quality and vocal health evaluations. This study quantifies the impact of additive simulated reverberation on otherwise clean voice recordings as reflected in voice metrics commonly used for voice quality evaluation. From a larger database of voice recordings collected in a low-noise, low-reverberation environment, voice samples of a sustained [a:] vowel produced at two different speaker intents (comfortable and clear) by five healthy voice college-age female native English speakers were used. Using the reverb effect in Audacity, eight reverberation situations indicating a range of reverberation times (T20 between 0.004 and 1.82 s) were simulated and convolved with the original recordings. All voice samples, both original and reverberation-affected, were analyzed using freely available PRAAT software (version 6.0.13) to calculate five common voice parameters: jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), alpha ratio, and smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPs). Statistical analyses assessed the sensitivity and variations in voice metrics to a range of simulated room reverberation conditions. Results showed that jitter, HNR, and alpha ratio were stable at simulated reverberation times below T20 of 1 s, with HNR and jitter more stable in the clear vocal style. Shimmer was highly sensitive even at T20 of 0.53 s, which would reflect a common room, while CPPs remained stable across all simulated reverberation conditions. Understanding the sensitivity and stability of these voice metrics to a range of room acoustics effects allows for targeted use of certain metrics even in less controlled environments, enabling selective application of stable measures like CPPs and cautious interpretation of shimmer, ensuring more reliable and accurate voice assessments.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering