ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2020
Application of a Landmark-Based Method for Acoustic Analysis of Dysphonic Speech.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in speech articulatory timing and associations with pragmatic language ability in autism.Research in autism spectrum disorders · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Voice Assessment of Patients with Parkinson's Disease Off and On Treatment: Machine vs. Deep-Learning Comparison.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Consonantal Landmarks as Predictors of Dysarthria among English-Speaking Adults with Cerebral Palsy.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- A First Step toward the Clinical Application of Landmark-Based Acoustic Analysis in Child Mandarin.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Computer-Assisted Syllable Complexity Analysis of Continuous Speech as a Measure of Child Speech Disorders.Proceedings of the ... International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. International Congress of Phonetic Sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimSpeakers with dysphonia often report difficulty with maintaining intelligibility in noisy environments; however, there is no objective method for characterizing this difficulty. Landmark-based analysis is a linguistically-motived, knowledge-based speech analysis technique, which may serve as the basis of acoustic tool for describing the intelligibility deficit. As the first step toward development of such a tool, this study examined whether Landmark-based analysis could describe acoustic differences between normal and dysphonic speech.
methodThe recordings subjected to the Landmark-based analysis were the first sentence of the Rainbow Passage from 33 speakers with normal voice and 36 speakers with dysphonia. These recordings were selected from the Kay Elemetrics Database of Disordered Voice. The between-group difference was evaluated based on counts of certain Landmarks (LM).
resultsThe average counts of all LMs were significantly greater in normal speech, t(66.85) = 2.36, P = 0.02. When the group-difference was examined for each LM, dysphonic speech had more [g] and [b] LMs and fewer [s] LMs than normal speech (P < 0.01 for all cases). A classification tree model identified [+s] and [+b] LMs are the primary predictors for the dysphonic speech. The model's misclassification rate was 7.24%.
conclusionsThis preliminary investigation demonstrates that LM-based analysis is capable of differentiating dysphonic speech from normal speech. This encouraging result rationalizes future examinations of LM analysis in other areas of interest. For example, LM-based measures could conceivably be used as to quantify general intelligibility, and/or provide insight into underlying mechanisms of intelligibility deficits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.