ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Comparison of Praat and Computerized Speech Lab for formant analysis of five Japanese vowels in maxillectomy patients.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Speech impairment is a common complication after surgical resection of maxillary tumors. Maxillofacial prosthodontists play a critical role in restoring this function so that affected patients can enjoy better lives. For that purpose, several acoustic software packages have been used for speech evaluation, among which Computerized Speech Lab (CSL) and Praat are widely used in clinical and research contexts. Although CSL is a commercial product, Praat is freely available on the internet and can be used by patients and clinicians to practice several therapy goals. Therefore, this study aimed to determine if both software produced comparable results for the first two formant frequencies (F1 and F2) and their respective formant ranges obtained from the same voice samples from Japanese participants with maxillectomy defects. Methods: CSL was used as a reference to evaluate the accuracy of Praat with both the default and newly proposed adjusted settings. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in this study for formant analysis of the five Japanese vowels (a/i/u/e/o) using CSL and Praat. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to judge the correlation between the analysis results of both programs regarding F1 and F2 and their respective formant ranges. Results: As the findings pointed out, highly positive correlations between both software were found for all acoustic features and all Praat settings. Discussion: The strong correlations between the results of both CSL and Praat suggest that both programs may have similar decision strategies for atypical speech and for both sexes. This study highlights that the default settings in Praat can be used for formant analysis in maxillectomy patients with predictable accuracy. The proposed adjusted settings in Praat can yield more accurate results for formant analysis of atypical speech in maxillectomy cases when the examiner cannot precisely locate the formant frequencies using the default settings or confirm analysis results obtained using CSL.
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.