ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Cross-device and test-retest reliability of speech acoustic measurements derived from consumer-grade mobile recording devices.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone self-testing of hand and speech motor functions: a study of reliability and usability in older adults.GeroScience · 2026Article
- An End-to-End Overview of Clinical Speech AI.IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing (2025) · 2026Article
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
In recent years, there has been growing interest in remote speech assessment through automated speech acoustic analysis. While the reliability of widely used features has been validated in professional recording settings, it remains unclear how the heterogeneity of consumer-grade recording devices, commonly used in nonclinical settings, impacts the reliability of these measurements. To address this issue, we systematically investigated the cross-device and test-retest reliability of classical speech acoustic measurements in a sample of healthy Chinese adults using consumer-grade equipment across three popular speech tasks: sustained phonation (SP), diadochokinesis (DDK), and picture description (PicD). A total of 51 participants completed two recording sessions spaced at least 24 hours apart. Speech outputs were recorded simultaneously using four devices: a voice recorder, laptop, tablet, and smartphone. Our results demonstrated good reliability for fundamental frequency and cepstral peak prominence in the SP task across testing sessions and devices. Other features from the SP and PicD tasks exhibited acceptable test-retest reliability, except for the period perturbation quotient from the tablet and formant frequency from the smartphone. However, measures from the DDK task showed a significant decrease in reliability on consumer-grade recording devices compared to professional devices. These findings indicate that the lower recording quality of consumer-grade equipment may compromise the reproducibility of syllable rate estimation, which is critical for DDK analysis. This study underscores the need for standardization of remote speech monitoring methodologies to ensure that remote home assessment provides accurate and reliable results for early screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39738817What 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.