Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37972580›Full record

ArticleFolia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP)2024

Plug-and-Play Microphones for Recording Speech and Voice with Smart Devices.

Gustavo Noffs, Matthew Cobler-Lichter, Thushara Perera, Scott C Kolbe, Helmut Butzkueven, Frederique M C Boonstra, Anneke van der Walt, Adam P Vogel

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Developing digital health technologies for frontotemporal degeneration.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gustavo NoffsDepartment of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Matthew Cobler-LichterDepartment of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, coblerli@buffalo.edu.
Thushara PereraThe Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Scott C KolbeDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Helmut ButzkuevenDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Frederique M C BoonstraDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anneke van der WaltDepartment of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Adam P VogelDepartment of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Monash University · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUHertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSmart devices are widely available and capable of quickly recording and uploading speech segments for health-related analysis. The switch from laboratory recordings with professional-grade microphone setups to remote, smart device-based recordings offers immense potential for the scalability of voice assessment. Yet, a growing body of literature points to a wide heterogeneity among acoustic metrics for their robustness to variation in recording devices. The addition of consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones has been proposed as a possible solution. The aim of our study was to assess if the addition of consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones increases the acoustic measurement agreement between ultra-portable devices and a reference microphone.

methodsSpeech was simultaneously recorded by a reference high-quality microphone commonly used in research and by two configurations with plug-and-play microphones. Twelve speech-acoustic features were calculated using recordings from each microphone to determine the agreement intervals in measurements between microphones. Agreement intervals were then compared to expected deviations in speech in various neurological conditions. Each microphone's response to speech and to silence was characterized through acoustic analysis to explore possible reasons for differences in acoustic measurements between microphones. The statistical differentiation of two groups, neurotypical and people with multiple sclerosis, using metrics from each tested microphone was compared to that of the reference microphone.

resultsThe two consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones favored high frequencies (mean center of gravity difference ≥ +175.3 Hz) and recorded more noise (mean difference in signal to noise ≤ -4.2 dB) when compared to the reference microphone. Between consumer-grade microphones, differences in relative noise were closely related to distance between the microphone and the speaker's mouth. Agreement intervals between the reference and consumer-grade microphones remained under disease-expected deviations only for fundamental frequency (f0, agreement interval ≤0.06 Hz), f0 instability (f0 CoV, agreement interval ≤0.05%), and tracking of second formant movement (agreement interval ≤1.4 Hz/ms). Agreement between microphones was poor for other metrics, particularly for fine timing metrics (mean pause length and pause length variability for various tasks). The statistical difference between the two groups of speakers was smaller with the plug-and-play than with the reference microphone.

conclusionMeasurement of f0 and F2 slope was robust to variation in recording equipment, while other acoustic metrics were not. Thus, the tested plug-and-play microphones should not be used interchangeably with professional-grade microphones for speech analysis. Plug-and-play microphones may assist in equipment standardization within speech studies, including remote or self-recording, possibly with small loss in accuracy and statistical power as observed in the current study.

Indexed as

Speech AcousticsAdultEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMultiple SclerosisSpeech Production MeasurementVoice QualityAcoustic analysisMeSH descriptorsMicrophoneRemote assessmentSpeechVoice

Identifiers

PMID37972580
PMCPMC11309067
OpenAlexW4388723223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.