Comparison between clinician-assisted and fully automated procedures for obtaining a voice range profile

A comparison was made between two methods of obtaining a voice range profile. One method was traditional, involving a clinician who gave instructions, motivated the subject to achieve the greatest intensity range, and determined when the goal was achieved. The second method was completely automated,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of speech and hearing research Vol. 38; no. 3; p. 526
Main Authors Titze, I R, Wong, D, Milder, M A, Hensley, S R, Ramig, L O
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.06.1995
Subjects
Adult
Clinical Protocols
Electronic Data Processing
Female
Humans
Male
Phonation
Phonetics
Speech Production Measurement
Voice Quality
Voice Training
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:A comparison was made between two methods of obtaining a voice range profile. One method was traditional, involving a clinician who gave instructions, motivated the subject to achieve the greatest intensity range, and determined when the goal was achieved. The second method was completely automated, involving the use of a videotape for instruction and a computer for elicitation and evaluation. Ten men and 10 women with normal voices participated as subjects in the study, and a counterbalanced design was used. Results indicated that there is no obvious preference for the use of either method, although considerable individual differences are noted.
ISSN:0022-4685
DOI:10.1044/jshr.3803.526