A Normative Study of the Adult Voice

Christina Schaefer1 • Shelby Reynolds1 • Anna-Kathryn Henderson1 • Ashwini Joshi1 • Kim Steinhauer2
Richard Horne2 • Mary McDonald Klimek2 • Joseph Stemple1 • Lisa Thomas3
1
University of Kentucky • 2Vocal Innovations Inc. • 3Marshall University 


Abstract Methods Results

Acoustic analyses of voice have been questioned due to Participants • Mean values and standard deviations for the various
equipment concerns, high intra- and inter-subject variability, • Group A (18-39 years): Female N=15, Male N=14 measures of fundamental frequency, average intensity, jitter,
inconsistent sound collection techniques, and variability • Group B (40- 59 years): Female N=13, Male N=7 shimmer, harmonic- to-noise ratio, maximum phonation
in program algorithms. The purpose of this study was to time, s/z ratio and diadochokinetic rate are given below for
establish normative data for the adult population using Inclusion Criteria the 4 groups.
a newly developed acoustic measurement system (Voice • English as primary language for communication
Evaluation Suite, Vocal Innovations). 60 participants, • Passed a pure-tone hearing screening prior to
ages 18 to 65, were enrolled. Acoustic measures were participation. Measures

Measures

Female
A
 Female
B

Mean
 Female
A
 S.D.
 Mean
 Female
B
 S.D.

taken during sustained phonation, connected speech, and • No history of voice disorder per self report and F0
average
 Mean

214.393
 S.D.

26.760



Mean

175.608
 S.D.

17.916



maximum performance tasks. • No current voice disorder per score of less than 1 on each F0
average

(Hz)

(Hz)

F0
minimum

214.393

189.027

26.760



25.497

175.608

139.162

17.916



15.189

subscale of the GRBAS.1 F0
minimum

(Hz)
 189.027
 25.497
 139.162



15.189



• Non-singers (Hz)

Background
F0
maximum
 642.267
 212.515
 657.077
 247.933



F0
maximum

(Hz)
 642.267
 212.515
 657.077
 247.933



• Non-smokers for the past 5 years. (Hz)

F0
Range

 20.333
 6.705
 25.462
 8.211



• Acoustic measurement of the voice signal provides an F0
Range


(semitones)

(semitones)

Jitter
(%)

20.333

0.82

6.705

0.275

25.462

0.985

8.211



0.296

indirect measure of laryngeal functioning and offers a 


degree of objective information regarding voice production Procedures Jitter
(%)


Shimmer
(dB)

Shimmer
(dB)

Avg
SPL
(dB)

0.82

1.593

1.593

81.373

0.275

0.681



0.681

7.819



0.985

1.6

1.6

79.615

0.296

0.546




0.546

7.431




Avg
SPL
(dB)

HNR
(dB)
 81.373

9.913
 7.819

2.846
 79.615

12.538
 7.431

3.042




and pathology. Equipment HNR
(dB)

MPT
(sec)
 9.913

19.627


 2.846

6.474
 12.538

19.777
 3.042

7.712




• Shure Beta 53 omnidirectional headset mounted MPT
(sec)

S/Z
ratio

S/Z
ratio

DDKR

19.627

1.095



1.095

4.94

6.474

0.446

0.446

1.164

19.777

1.098

1.098

4.831

7.712

0.260




0.260

1.348




• The widespread and consistent use of acoustic microphone DDKR

(rate/sec)
 4.94
 1.164
 4.831
 1.348



measurement has been limited by: • The Voice Evaluation SuiteTM (VES), by Vocal (rate/sec)







– cost of specialized equipment and software InnovationsTM 


Conclusions


– lack of equipment portability • TASCAM US-122 16 bit 48 kHz digitizer with a 20 Hz to Measures

Measures

Male
A
 Male
B

Mean
 Male
A
 S.D.
 Mean
 Male
B
 S.D.

– acoustic measurement has not been readily 20 kHz +/- 1 dB frequency response. F0
average
 Mean

106.414
 S.D.

13.289


 Mean

110.821
 S.D.

15.065


 • Information from the study offers normative data on a
accessible to all clients. Subjects were seated in a sound-treated room and fitted with F0
average

(Hz)

(Hz)

F0
minimum

106.414

95.686

13.289



13.513

110.821

92.1

15.065



13.930
 new system of acoustic analysis: The Voice Evaluation
the microphone at a 3 cm mouth to microphone distance F0
minimum

(Hz)
 95.686



13.513


 92.1
 13.930

SuiteTM (VES), by Vocal InnovationsTM. This data is part
• Recent technological advances have permitted the (Hz)

F0
maximum

F0
maximum

(Hz)

427.386

427.386

265.756



265.756



461.086

461.086

189.033

189.033
 of a multi- institutional study and adds to the pool of
development of more cost-effective, portable acoustic Measures (Hz)

F0
Range

 22.857
 11.574


 26.857
 7.058

normative data being collected.
• Sustained phonation on the vowel /a/ (3 trials),
F0
Range

 22.857
 11.574
 26.857
 7.058

systems appropriate for clinical use. (semitones)

(semitones)

Jitter
(%)
 1.414



0.322


 1.043
 0.659
 • Information gained during the study will :
• Engaged in a 10+ second sample of conversational speech Jitter
(%)

Shimmer
 1.414

2.143
 0.322




0.629
 1.043

1.671
 0.659

0.901

– Serve as a guiding tool for the engineers and
Shimmer
 2.143
 0.629
 1.671
 0.901

• As these systems emerge, there exists a need to examine the • Maximum performance measures of: (dB)

(dB)

Avg
SPL
(dB)
 77.043



8.838


 79.25
 8.596
 programmers to fine-tune the software.
systems for reliability and to – phonation time on /a/, duration of /s/ and /z/, dynamic Avg
SPL
(dB)

HNR
(dB)

HNR
(dB)

77.043

13.886

13.886

8.838




2.895

2.895

79.25

15.364

15.364

8.596

3.889

3.889
 – Offer clinicians reference values for male and female
frequency range, dynamic intensity range, laryngeal MPT
(sec)

MPT
(sec)

S/Z
ratio

21.66429



21.66429



0.847




6.791

6.791




0.259

24.8



24.8



0.994

5.797

5.797

0.316
 voices of various age groups and assist in the clinical
• establish normative data for the products. diadochokinesis rate S/Z
ratio

DDKR

 0.847

4.521



0.259




1.078
 0.994

4.114
 0.316

1.448

assessment of voice production using this system.
• Productions were automatically recorded and analyzed
DDKR


(rate/sec)

 4.521


 1.078


 4.114
 1.448


 (rate/sec)


The consideration of normative information from this study
and a profile of each participant’s acoustic data was 

against established norms in the literature will speak to the
automatically produced and saved. suitability of these emerging systems for more widespread
• Data were combined and analyzed to obtain normative clinical use.
information (mean and S.D.)for each age group and
gender for each of the measures noted above. References
1. Hirano M. Clinical Examination of Voice. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1981.