CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Voice and Speech DisordersPhonetics and Phonology ResearchNoise Effects and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ambulatory monitoring of Lombard-related vocal characteristics in vocally healthy female speakers

Open access
Whittico, Thomas H., Ortiz, Andrew J., Marks, Katherine L., Toles, Laura E., Van Stan, Jarrad H., Hillman, Robert E., Mehta, Daryush D.·2020·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/10.0001446PMC PMC7316514
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Speakers typically modify their voice in the presence of increased background noise levels, exhibiting the classic Lombard effect. Lombard-related characteristics during everyday activities were recorded from 17 vocally healthy women who wore an acoustic noise dosimeter and ambulatory voice monitor. The linear relationship between vocal sound pressure level and environmental noise level exhibited an average slope of 0.54 dB/dB and value of 72.8 dB SPL at 50 dBA when correlation coefficients were greater than 0.4. These results, coupled with analyses of spectral and cepstral vocal function measures, provide normative ambulatory Lombard characteristics for comparison with patients with voice-use related disorders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/10.0001446

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neurologically intact and neurologically impaired individuals have been shown to significantly increase vocal intensity when speaking in the presence of background noise.

    “Neurologically intact (Shrivastav et al., 2014; Whittico et al., 2020) and neurologically impaired (Adams et al., 2020; Richardson & Sussman, 2019; Shrivastav et al., 2014; Stathopoulos et al., 2014) individuals have been shown to significantly increase their vocal intensity when speaking in the presence of background noise.”

    From Respiratory Responses to Two Voice Interventions for Parkinson's Disease (2022) · cites this paper as Whittico et al., 2020

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 1911, Le signe de l'élévation de la voix, Ann. Otolaryngol., 37, 101
  2. 2011, The Lombard effect, Curr. Biol., 21, R614, 10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.003 · DOI
  3. 1971, The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 14, 677, 10.1044/jshr.1404.677 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 2012, Investigations into vocal doses and parameters pertaining to primary school teachers in classrooms, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 131, 2817, 10.1121/1.3689549 · DOI
  5. 2009, Analysis and compensation of Lombard speech across noise type and levels with application to in-set/out-of-set speaker recognition, IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., 17, 366, 10.1109/TASL.2008.2009019 · DOI
  6. 2016, Hyperarticulation in Lombard speech: Global coordination of the jaw, lips and the tongue, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 139, 151, 10.1121/1.4939495 · DOI
  7. 1989, Inhibiting the Lombard effect, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 85, 894, 10.1121/1.397561 · DOI
  8. 2010, Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 53, 588, 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0138) · DOI
  9. K. S. Pearsons, R. L. Bennett, and S. Fidell, “Speech levels in various noise environments,” Environmental Health Effects Research Series, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-600/1-77-025 (1977), pp. 1–70.
  10. 2011, Vocal effort with changing talker-to-listener distance in different acoustic environments, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 129, 1981, 10.1121/1.3552881 · DOI
  11. 2002, Vocal behavior and vocal loading factors for preschool teachers at work studied with binaural dat recordings, J. Voice, 16, 356, 10.1016/S0892-1997(02)00107-8 · DOI
  12. 2007, Measurement and prediction of speech and noise levels and the Lombard effect in eating establishments, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 121, 2023, 10.1121/1.2535571 · DOI
  13. 2008, Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 123, 2064, 10.1121/1.2839283 · DOI
  14. 2018, Lombard effect, ambient noise, and willingness to spend time and money in a restaurant, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 144, EL209, 10.1121/1.5055018 · DOI
  15. 2017, Four-day-follow-up study on the voice monitoring of primary school teachers: Relationships with conversational task and classroom acoustics, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 141, 441, 10.1121/1.4973805 · DOI
  16. 2016, Effect of noise on vocal loudness and pitch in natural environments: An accelerometer (Ambulatory Phonation Monitor) study, J. Voice, 30, 389, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.05.016 · DOI
  17. 2017, Evaluation of the starting point of the Lombard effect, Acta Acust. Acust., 103, 169, 10.3813/AAA.919043 · DOI
  18. 2018, Analysing the vocal behaviour of teachers during classroom teaching using a portable voice accumulator, Logoped. Phoniatr. Vocol., 43, 1, 10.1080/14015439.2017.1295104 · DOI
  19. 2012, Mobile voice health monitoring using a wearable accelerometer sensor and a smartphone platform, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 59, 3090, 10.1109/TBME.2012.2207896 · DOI
  20. 2017, Silence and voicing accumulations in Italian primary school teachers with and without voice disorders, J. Voice, 31, 260.e11, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.05.009 · DOI
  21. 2005, Adaptation of a Pocket PC for use as a wearable voice dosimeter, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 48, 780, 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/054) · DOI
  22. 2003, Development and testing of a portable vocal accumulator, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 46, 1457, 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/113) · DOI
  23. 2016, Relationships between vocal function measures derived from an acoustic microphone and a subglottal neck-surface accelerometer, IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Proc., 24, 659, 10.1109/TASLP.2016.2516647 · DOI
  24. 2019, The difference between first and second harmonic amplitudes correlates between glottal airflow and neck-surface accelerometer signals during phonation, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 145, EL386, 10.1121/1.5100909 · DOI
  25. 2005, Estimation of sound pressure levels of voiced speech from skin vibration of the neck, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 117, 1386, 10.1121/1.1850074 · DOI
  26. 2015, Using ambulatory voice monitoring to investigate common voice disorders: Research update, Front Bioeng. Biotechnol., 3, 155, 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00155 · DOI
  27. 2020, Differences in weeklong ambulatory vocal behavior between female patients with phonotraumatic lesions and matched controls, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 63, 372, 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00065 · DOI
  28. 2007, Voicing and silence periods in daily and weekly vocalizations of teachers, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 121, 469, 10.1121/1.2390676 · DOI
  29. 1987, Measurement of total actual speaking time in a patient with spastic dysphonia, Folia Phoniatr. (Basel), 39, 65, 10.1159/000265840 · DOI
  30. 1988, Glottal airflow and transglottal air pressure measurements for male and female speakers in soft, normal, and loud voice, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 84, 511, 10.1121/1.396829 · DOI
  31. 2011, Observations of the relationship between noise exposure and preschool teacher voice usage in day-care center environments, J. Voice, 25, 166, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.09.009 · DOI
  32. 2018, Vocal behavior in environmental noise: Comparisons between work and leisure conditions in women with work-related voice disorders and matched controls, J. Voice, 32, 126.e23, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.04.010 · DOI
  33. 2019, Automatic speech and singing classification in ambulatory recordings for normal and disordered voices, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 146, EL22, 10.1121/1.5115804 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Whittico, T. H., Ortiz, A. J., Marks, K. L., Toles, L. E., Van Stan, J. H., Hillman, R. E., & Mehta, D. D.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Center for Laryngeal Surgery and Voice Rehabilitation, Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA   thwhittico@gmail.com , aortiz15@mgh.harvard.edu , kmarks@mghihp.edu , ltoles@mghihp.edu , jvanstan@mghihp.edu , hillman.robert@mgh.harvard.edu , mehta.daryush@mgh.harvard.edu
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
2020-06-01
Volume
147
Issue
6
Pages
EL552-EL558
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/10.0001446
PMC
PMC7316514
OpenAlex
W3037158947
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (P50 DC015446)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Acoustics and Ultrasonics › Noise Effects and Management
Keywords
Lombard effect, voice modification, background noise, ambient noise levels, cepstral analysis, spectral analysis, voice disorders, women
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Noise, Phonation, Voice, Voice Disorders, Monitoring, Ambulatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review