Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVogel, Adam P
dc.contributor.authorRosen, Kristin M
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Angela T
dc.contributor.authorReilly, Sheena
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-27T03:05:21Z
dc.date.available2018-04-27T03:05:21Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn1021-7762
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000368227
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/173227
dc.description.abstractBackground: Large-scale multi-site experimental and clinical speech protocols require high-fidelity, easy-to-use speech recording technologies. However, little is known about the reliability and comparability of affordable, portable and commonly used technologies with traditional well-validated devices (e.g., a hard disc recorder with a high-quality microphone). Objective: To examine the comparability of speech and voice samples acquired from protocols involving high- and low-quality devices. Methods: Speech samples were acquired simultaneously from 15 healthy adults using four devices and analyzed acoustically for measures of timing and voice quality. For the purpose of making initial comparisons, methods were deemed comparable if the resultant acoustic data yielded root mean squared error values ≤10% and statistically significant Spearman's correlation coefficients. Results: The data suggest that there is significant and widespread variability in the quality and reliability between different acquisition methods for voice and speech recording. Not one method provided statistically similar data to the protocol using the benchmark device (i.e., a high-quality recorder coupled with a condenser microphone). Acoustic analysis cannot be assumed to be comparable if different recording methods are used to record speech. Conclusions: Findings have implications for researchers and clinicians hoping to make comparisons between labs or, where lower-quality devices are suggested, to offer equal fidelity.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherS. Karger
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom244
dc.relation.ispartofpageto250
dc.relation.ispartofissue6
dc.relation.ispartofjournalFolia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica: International Journal of Phoniatrics, Speech Therapy and Communication Pathology
dc.relation.ispartofvolume66
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode320299
dc.titleComparability of Modern Recording Devices for Speech Analysis: Smartphone, Landline, Laptop, and Hard Disc Recorder
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorReilly, Sheena


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record