CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Voice and Speech DisordersSpeech and Audio ProcessingPhonetics and Phonology Research

Plug-and-Play Microphones for Recording Speech and Voice with Smart Devices

Open access
Noffs, Gustavo, Cobler-Lichter, Matthew, Perera, Thushara, Kolbe, Scott C., Butzkueven, Helmut, Boonstra, Frederique M.C., van der Walt, Anneke, Vogel, Adam P.·2024·Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
DOI 10.1159/000535152PMC PMC11309067

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Smart devices are widely available and capable of quickly recording and uploading speech segments for health-related analysis. The switch from laboratory recordings with professional-grade microphone setups to remote, smart device-based recordings offers immense potential for the scalability of voice assessment. Yet, a growing body of literature points to a wide heterogeneity among acoustic metrics for their robustness to variation in recording devices. The addition of consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones has been proposed as a possible solution. The aim of our study was to assess if the addition of consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones increases the acoustic measurement agreement between ultra-portable devices and a reference microphone. METHODS: Speech was simultaneously recorded by a reference high-quality microphone commonly used in research and by two configurations with plug-and-play microphones. Twelve speech-acoustic features were calculated using recordings from each microphone to determine the agreement intervals in measurements between microphones. Agreement intervals were then compared to expected deviations in speech in various neurological conditions. Each microphone's response to speech and to silence was characterized through acoustic analysis to explore possible reasons for differences in acoustic measurements between microphones. The statistical differentiation of two groups, neurotypical and people with multiple sclerosis, using metrics from each tested microphone was compared to that of the reference microphone. RESULTS: The two consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones favored high frequencies (mean center of gravity difference ≥ +175.3 Hz) and recorded more noise (mean difference in signal to noise ≤ -4.2 dB) when compared to the reference microphone. Between consumer-grade microphones, differences in relative noise were closely related to distance between the microphone and the speaker's mouth. Agreement intervals between the reference and consumer-grade microphones remained under disease-expected deviations only for fundamental frequency (f0, agreement interval ≤0.06 Hz), f0 instability (f0 CoV, agreement interval ≤0.05%), and tracking of second formant movement (agreement interval ≤1.4 Hz/ms). Agreement between microphones was poor for other metrics, particularly for fine timing metrics (mean pause length and pause length variability for various tasks). The statistical difference between the two groups of speakers was smaller with the plug-and-play than with the reference microphone. CONCLUSION: Measurement of f0 and F2 slope was robust to variation in recording equipment, while other acoustic metrics were not. Thus, the tested plug-and-play microphones should not be used interchangeably with professional-grade microphones for speech analysis. Plug-and-play microphones may assist in equipment standardization within speech studies, including remote or self-recording, possibly with small loss in accuracy and statistical power as observed in the current study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000535152

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Updates to smartphones and updated cellular device iterations have the potential to render studies, and even data collected at different times in the same study, non‐comparable to one another.

    “Clinical trials require consistent methods, but updates to smartphones and updated cellular device iterations have the potential to render studies, and even data collected at different times in the same study, non‐comparable to one another. 41 , 73”

    From Developing digital health technologies for frontotemporal degeneration (2025) · cites this paper as [41]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. [1]Englert M, Latoszek BBV, Behlau M. Exploring the validity of acoustic measurements and other voice assessments. J Voice. 2022; S0892-1997(21)00439-2. 35022153
  2. [2]Mundt JC, Vogel AP, Feltner DE, Lenderking WR. Vocal acoustic biomarkers of depression severity and treatment response. Biol Psychiatry. 2012; 72(7): 580– 7. 22541039 PMC3409931
  3. [3]Konstantopoulos K, Vikelis M, Seikel JA, Mitsikostas D-D. The existence of phonatory instability in multiple sclerosis: an acoustic and electroglottographic study. Neurol Sci. 2010; 31(3): 259– 68. 19876591
  4. [4]Friedova L, Rusz J, Motyl J, Srpova B, Vodehnalova K, Andelova M,. Slowed articulation rate is associated with information processing speed decline in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. J Clin Neurosci. 2019; 65: 28– 33. 31072740
  5. [5]Vizza P, Tradigo G, Mirarchi D, Bossio RB, Lombardo N, Arabia G,. Methodologies of speech analysis for neurodegenerative diseases evaluation. Int J Med Inform. 2019; 122: 45– 54. 30623783
  6. [6]Daudet L, Yadav N, Perez M, Poellabauer C, Schneider S, Huebner A. Portable mTBI assessment using temporal and frequency analysis of speech. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017; 21(2): 496– 506. 27913365
  7. [7]Nevler N, Ash S, Irwin DJ, Liberman M, Grossman M. Validated automatic speech biomarkers in primary progressive aphasia. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2019; 6(1): 4– 14. 30656179 PMC6331511
  8. [9]König A, Linz N, Zeghari R, Klinge X, Tröger J, Alexandersson J,. Detecting apathy in older adults with cognitive disorders using automatic speech analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019; 69(4): 1183– 93. 31127764
  9. [10]Starkstein SE, Jorge R, Mizrahi R, Robinson RG. A prospective longitudinal study of apathy in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006; 77(1): 8– 11. 16361584 PMC2117400
  10. [11]Schneider SL, Habich L, Weston ZM, Rosen CA. Observations and considerations for implementing remote acoustic voice recording and analysis in clinical practice. J Voice. 2021. 34366193
  11. [12]Vogel AP, Maruff P. Comparison of voice acquisition methodologies in speech research. Behav Res Methods. 2008; 40(4): 982– 7. 19001389
  12. [14]Lin E, Hornibrook J, Ormond T. Evaluating iPhone recordings for acoustic voice assessment. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2012; 64(3): 122– 30. 22584162
  13. [15]Rusz J, Hlavnicka J, Tykalova T, Novotny M, Dusek P, Sonka K,. Smartphone allows capture of speech abnormalities associated with high risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018; 26(8): 1495– 507. 29994713
  14. [16]Jannetts S, Schaeffler F, Beck J, Cowen S. Assessing voice health using smartphones: bias and random error of acoustic voice parameters captured by different smartphone types. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019; 54(2): 292– 305. 30779425
  15. [17]Zhang C, Jepson K, Lohfink G, Arvaniti A. Comparing acoustic analyses of speech data collected remotely. J Acoust Soc Am. 2021; 149(6): 3910– 6. 34241427 PMC8269758
  16. [18]Vogel AP, Rosen KM, Morgan AT, Reilly S. Comparability of modern recording devices for speech analysis: smartphone, landline, laptop, and hard disc recorder. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014; 66(6): 244– 50. 25676365
  17. [19]Bottalico P, Codino J, Cantor-Cutiva LC, Marks K, Nudelman CJ, Skeffington J,. Reproducibility of voice parameters: the effect of room acoustics and microphones. J Voice. 2020; 34(3): 320– 34. 30471944 PMC6529301
  18. [20]Lebacq J, Schoentgen J, Cantarella G, Bruss FT, Manfredi C, DeJonckere P. Maximal ambient noise levels and type of voice material required for valid use of smartphones in clinical voice research. J Voice. 2017; 31(5): 550– 6. 28320627
  19. [21]Sanker C, Babinski S, Burns R, Evans M, Johns J, Kim J,. Don’t try this at home! The effects of recording devices and software on phonetic analysis. Language. 2021; 97(4): e360– e382.
  20. [22]Titze IR, Winholtz WS. Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements. J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36(6): 1177– 90. 8114484
  21. [23]Deliyski DD, Shaw HS, Evans MK. Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice. 2005; 19(1): 15– 28. 15766847
  22. [24]Parsa V, Jamieson DG, Pretty BR. Effects of microphone type on acoustic measures of voice. J Voice. 2001; 15(3): 331– 43. 11575630
  23. [25]Awan SN, Shaikh MA, Awan JA, Abdalla I, Lim KO, Misono S. Smartphone recordings are comparable to “gold standard” recordings for acoustic measurements of voice. J Voice. 2023: S0892-1997(23)00031-0. PMC10545813 37019804
  24. [26]Awan SN, Shaikh MA, Desjardins M, Feinstein H, Abbott KV. The effect of microphone frequency response on spectral and cepstral measures of voice: an examination of low-cost electret headset microphones. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022; 31(2): 959– 73. 35050724 PMC9150670
  25. [27]Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T,. Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American speech-language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018; 27(3): 887– 905. 29955816
  26. [28]Svec JG, Granqvist S. Guidelines for selecting microphones for human voice production research. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 19(4): 356– 68. 20601621
  27. [29]Vogel AP, Maruff P, Snyder PJ, Mundt JC. Standardization of pitch-range settings in voice acoustic analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(2): 318– 24. 19363172 PMC2669687
  28. [31]Vogel AP, Shirbin C, Churchyard AJ, Stout JC. Speech acoustic markers of early stage and prodromal Huntington’s disease: a marker of disease onset? Neuropsychologia. 2012; 50(14): 3273– 8. 22982606
  29. [32]Vogel AP, Fletcher J, Maruff P. Acoustic analysis of the effects of sustained wakefulness on speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128(6): 3747– 56. 21218906
  30. [33]Chan JCS, Stout JC, Vogel AP. Speech in prodromal and symptomatic Huntington’s disease as a model of measuring onset and progression in dominantly inherited neurodegenerative diseases. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019; 107: 450– 60. 31419452
  31. [34]Tjaden K, Watling E. Characteristics of diadochokinesis in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2003; 55(5): 241– 59. 12931058
  32. [35]Rusz J, Cmejla R, Ruzickova H, Ruzicka E. Quantitative acoustic measurements for characterization of speech and voice disorders in early untreated Parkinson’s disease. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 129(1): 350– 67. 21303016
  33. [36]Rodgers JD, Tjaden K, Feenaughty L, Weinstock-Guttman B, Benedict RH. Influence of cognitive function on speech and articulation rate in multiple sclerosis. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013; 19(2): 173– 80. 23058309 PMC5564302
  34. [37]Noffs G, Perera T, Kolbe SC, Shanahan CJ, Boonstra FMC, Evans A,. What speech can tell us: a systematic review of dysarthria characteristics in Multiple Sclerosis. Autoimmun Rev. 2018; 17(12): 1202– 9. 30316992
  35. [40]Noffs G, Boonstra FMC, Perera T, Butzkueven H, Kolbe SC, Maldonado F,. Speech metrics, general disability, brain imaging and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2021; 28(1): 259– 68. 32916031
  36. [41]Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983; 33(11): 1444– 52. 6685237
  37. [42]Maryn Y, Ysenbaert F, Zarowski A, Vanspauwen R. Mobile communication devices, ambient noise, and acoustic voice measures. J Voice. 2017; 31(2): 248.e11– 23. 27692682
  38. [43]Oliveira G, Fava G, Baglione M, Pimpinella M. Mobile digital recording: adequacy of the iRig and iOS device for acoustic and perceptual analysis of normal voice. J Voice. 2017; 31(2): 236– 42. 27423820
  39. [44]Shadle CH, Nam H, Whalen DH. Comparing measurement errors for formants in synthetic and natural vowels. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 139(2): 713– 27. 26936555 PMC4752539
  40. [46]Eargle JM. Environmental effects and departures from ideal performance. Handbook of recording engineering. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2003. p. 65– 73.
  41. [47]Feigin JA, Barlow NL, Stelmachowicz PG. The effect of reference microphone placement on sound pressure levels at an ear level hearing aid microphone. Ear Hear. 1990; 11(5): 321– 6. 2262080
  42. [49]Vogel AP, Morgan AT. Factors affecting the quality of sound recording for speech and voice analysis. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 11(6): 431– 7. 21271920
  43. [50]Kent RD, Vorperian HK. Static measurements of vowel formant frequencies and bandwidths: a review. J Commun Disord. 2018; 74: 74– 97. 29891085 PMC6002811
  44. [51]Titze IR. The G. Paul Moore Lecture. Toward standards in acoustic analysis of voice. J Voice. 1994; 8(1): 1– 7. 8167782
  45. [52]Heman-Ackah YD, Heuer RJ, Michael DD, Ostrowski R, Horman M, Baroody MM,. Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112(4): 324– 33. 12731627

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noffs, G., Cobler-Lichter, M., Perera, T., Kolbe, S. C., Butzkueven, H., Boonstra, F. M. C., van der Walt, A., & Vogel, A. P.
Affiliations
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Bionics Institute (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Noffs, Gustavo
ORCID
Venue
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2023-11-16
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
372-385
ISSN
  • 0015-5705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1021-7762
  • 1421-9972
DOI
10.1159/000535152
PMC
PMC11309067
OpenAlex
W4388723223
Cited by
5
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1085461)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
measurement agreement, fundamental frequency, second formant, pause duration, multiple sclerosis, self-recording, signal-to-noise ratio, smart devices, voice assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Male, Multiple Sclerosis, Speech Acoustics, Speech Production Measurement, Voice Quality

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