Some Spectral Correlates of Pathological Breathy and Rough Voice Quality for Different Types of Vowel Fragments This study deals with the relation between listeners' ratings of pathological breathiness and roughness and certain characteristics of the voice spectrum. Two general research questions were addressed: First, which spectral parameters may serve as useful predictors of breathiness and roughness? Second, does the type of speech fragment used for analysis ... Research Article
Research Article  |   August 01, 1995
Some Spectral Correlates of Pathological Breathy and Rough Voice Quality for Different Types of Vowel Fragments
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Guus de Krom
    Research Institute for Language and Speech (OTS), University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Contact author: Guus de Krom, PhD, Research Institute for Language and Speech (OTS), University of Utrecht, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: guus.dekrom@let.ruu.nl
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Voice Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech / Research Articles
Research Article   |   August 01, 1995
Some Spectral Correlates of Pathological Breathy and Rough Voice Quality for Different Types of Vowel Fragments
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1995, Vol. 38, 794-811. doi:10.1044/jshr.3804.794
History: Received February 14, 1994 , Accepted January 30, 1995
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1995, Vol. 38, 794-811. doi:10.1044/jshr.3804.794
History: Received February 14, 1994; Accepted January 30, 1995

This study deals with the relation between listeners' ratings of pathological breathiness and roughness and certain characteristics of the voice spectrum. Two general research questions were addressed: First, which spectral parameters may serve as useful predictors of breathiness and roughness? Second, does the type of speech fragment used for analysis have an effect on the obtained regression model? Listener ratings of breathiness and roughness were obtained for three types of vowel fragments: a vowel onset segment, a mid-vowel (post-onset) segment, and a vowel segment covering the onset and the acoustically more stable post-onset parts. Results indicated that the harmonics-to-noise ratio was the best single predictor of both rated breathiness and roughness, explaining up to 54% of the true rating variance. By combining different predictors, between 75% and 80% of the breathiness variance could be explained for all three types of fragments. For roughness, a strong effect of fragment type was observed, with most variance explained in vowel onset fragments (71%), and least in post-onset fragments (52%). The effect of fragment type was also observed when regression analyses were performed with six predictors based on a factor analysis of the acoustic data.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank a number of colleagues for their help in writing this article: my PhD project supervisors Sieb Nooteboom and Bert Schouten (both Research Institute for Language and Speech, University of Utrecht), Peter Pabon (Royal Dutch Conservatory, the Hague), Bert Cranen (Phonetics Department, University of Nijmegen), Dik Hermes (Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven), Louis Pols (Phonetics Department, University of Amsterdam), Guido Smoorenburg (Experimental Audiology Department, University Hospital Utrecht), George Wieneke (Phoniatrics Department, University Hospital Utrecht), and the (anonymous) reviewers. Huub van den Bergh (University of Utrecht/Dutch National Institute of Educational Measurement, Arnhem) again significantly contributed to the solution of many statistical problems.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access