European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 272, Issue 11, pp 3391–3399 | Cite as

Exploring the feasibility of smart phone microphone for measurement of acoustic voice parameters and voice pathology screening

  • Virgilijus UlozaEmail author
  • Evaldas Padervinskis
  • Aurelija Vegiene
  • Ruta Pribuisiene
  • Viktoras Saferis
  • Evaldas Vaiciukynas
  • Adas Gelzinis
  • Antanas Verikas


The objective of this study is to evaluate the reliability of acoustic voice parameters obtained using smart phone (SP) microphones and investigate the utility of use of SP voice recordings for voice screening. Voice samples of sustained vowel/a/obtained from 118 subjects (34 normal and 84 pathological voices) were recorded simultaneously through two microphones: oral AKG Perception 220 microphone and SP Samsung Galaxy Note3 microphone. Acoustic voice signal data were measured for fundamental frequency, jitter and shimmer, normalized noise energy (NNE), signal to noise ratio and harmonic to noise ratio using Dr. Speech software. Discriminant analysis-based Correct Classification Rate (CCR) and Random Forest Classifier (RFC) based Equal Error Rate (EER) were used to evaluate the feasibility of acoustic voice parameters classifying normal and pathological voice classes. Lithuanian version of Glottal Function Index (LT_GFI) questionnaire was utilized for self-assessment of the severity of voice disorder. The correlations of acoustic voice parameters obtained with two types of microphones were statistically significant and strong (r = 0.73–1.0) for the entire measurements. When classifying into normal/pathological voice classes, the Oral-NNE revealed the CCR of 73.7 % and the pair of SP-NNE and SP-shimmer parameters revealed CCR of 79.5 %. However, fusion of the results obtained from SP voice recordings and GFI data provided the CCR of 84.60 % and RFC revealed the EER of 7.9 %, respectively. In conclusion, measurements of acoustic voice parameters using SP microphone were shown to be reliable in clinical settings demonstrating high CCR and low EER when distinguishing normal and pathological voice classes, and validated the suitability of the SP microphone signal for the task of automatic voice analysis and screening.


Acoustic analysis Voice screening Smart phone 



This study was supported by grant VP1-3.1- ŠMM-10-V-02-030 from the Ministry of Education and Science of Republic of Lithuania.

Compilance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Roy N, Merrill RM, Thibeault S, Parsa RA, Gray SD, Smith EM (2004) Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. J Speech Lang Hear Res 47:281–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Branski RC, Cukier-Blaj S, Pusic A, Cano SJ, Klassen A, Mener D et al (2010) Measuring quality of life in dysphonic patients: a systematic review of content development in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Voice 24:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharyya N (2014) The prevalence of voice problems among adults in the united states. Laryngoscope 124:2359–2362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen SM, Kim J, Roy N, Courey M (2014) Delayed otolaryngology referral for voice disorders increases health care costs. Am J Med 128:11–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G et al (2001) A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:77–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaleem MF, Ghoraani B, Guergachi A, Krishnan S (2011) Telephone-quality pathological speech classification using empirical mode decomposition. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011:7095–7098PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mat Baki M, Wood G, Alston M, Ratcliffe P, Sandhu G, Rubin JS, Birchall MA (2015) Reliability of operavox against multidimensional voice program (MDVP). Clin Otolaryngol 40:22–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reynolds DA (1995) Large population speaker identification using clean and telephone speech. Signal Process Lett IEEE 2:46–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moran RJ, Reilly RB, de Chazal P, Lacy PD (2006) Telephony-based voice pathology assessment using automated speech analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:468–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wormald RN, Moran RJ, Reilly RB, Lacy PD (2008) Performance of an automated, remote system to detect vocal fold paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 117:834–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jokinen E, Yrttiaho S, Pulakka H, Vainio M, Alku P (2012) Signal-to-noise ratio adaptive post-filtering method for intelligibility enhancement of telephone speech. J Acoust Soc Am 132:3990–4001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin E, Hornibrook J, Ormond T (2012) Evaluating iphone recordings for acoustic voice assessment. Folia Phoniatr Logop 64:122–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bach KK, Belafsky PC, Wasylik K, Postma GN, Koufman JA (2005) Validity and reliability of the glottal function index. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:961–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pribuisiene R, Baceviciene M, Uloza V, Vegiene A, Antuseva J (2012) Validation of the Lithuanian version of the glottal function index. J Voice 26:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verikas A, Gelzinis A, Bacauskiene M, Uloza V, Kaseta M (2009) Using the patient’s questionnaire data to screen laryngeal disorders. Comput Biol Med 39:148–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verikas A, Bacauskiene M, Gelzinis A, Vaiciukynas E, Uloza V (2012) Questionnaire-versus voice-based screening for laryngeal disorders. Expert Syst Appl 39:6254–6262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Uloza V, Saferis V, Uloziene I (2005) Perceptual and acoustic assessment of voice pathology and the efficacy of endolaryngeal phonomicrosurgery. J Voice 19:138–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elliott AC, Woodward WA (2007) Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook: with SPSS examples. Sage Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saenz-Lechon N, Godino-Llorente JI, Osma-Ruiz V, Gomez-Vilda P (2006) Methodological issues in the development of automatic systems for voice pathology detection. Biomed Signal Process Control 1:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brümmer N, de Villiers E (2013) The BOSARIS toolkit: Theory, algorithms and code for surviving the new dcf. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv 1304.2865Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comput Gr Stat 15:651–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz G (2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol Methods 14:323–348PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eadie TL, Doyle PC (2005) Classification of dysphonic voice: acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures. J Voice 19:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smits I, Ceuppens P, De Bodt MS (2005) A comparative study of acoustic voice measurements by means of Dr. Speech and computerized speech lab. J Voice 19:187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oguz H, Demirci M, Safak MA, Arslan N, Islam A, Kargin S (2007) Effects of unilateral vocal cord paralysis on objective voice measures obtained by Praat. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:257–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang Y, Jiang JJ (2008) Acoustic analyses of sustained and running voices from patients with laryngeal pathologies. J Voice 22:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maryn Y, Corthals P, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P, Deliyski D (2009) Perturbation measures of voice: a comparative study between multi-dimensional voice program and praat. Folia Phoniatr Logop 61:217–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Linder R, Albers AE, Hess M, Pöppl SJ, Schönweiler R (2008) Artificial neural network-based classification to screen for dysphonia using psychoacoustic scaling of acoustic voice features. J Voice 22:155–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muhammad G, Mesallam TA, Malki KH, Farahat M, Mahmood A, Alsulaiman M (2012) Multidirectional regression (MDR)-based features for automatic voice disorder detection. J Voice 26:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Svec JG, Granqvist S (2010) Guidelines for selecting microphones for human voice production research. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 19:356–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moon KR, Chung SM, Park HS, Kim HS (2012) Materials of acoustic analysis: sustained vowel versus sentence. J Voice 26:563–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaleem M, Ghoraani B, Guergachi A, Krishnan S (2013) Pathological speech signal analysis and classification using empirical mode decomposition. Med Biol Eng Comput 51:811–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henríquez P, Alonso JB, Ferrer MA, Travieso CM, Godino-Llorente JI, Díaz-de-María F (2009) Characterization of healthy and pathological voice through measures based on nonlinear dynamics. Audio Speech Lang Process IEEE Trans 17:1186–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Uloza V, Verikas A, Bacauskiene M, Gelzinis A, Pribuisiene R, Kaseta M, Saferis V (2011) Categorizing normal and pathological voices: automated and perceptual categorization. J Voice 25:700–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaiciukynas E, Verikas A, Gelzinis A, Bacauskiene M, Uloza V (2012) Exploring similarity-based classification of larynx disorders from human voice. Speech Commun 54:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virgilijus Uloza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evaldas Padervinskis
    • 1
  • Aurelija Vegiene
    • 1
  • Ruta Pribuisiene
    • 1
  • Viktoras Saferis
    • 2
  • Evaldas Vaiciukynas
    • 3
  • Adas Gelzinis
    • 3
  • Antanas Verikas
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyLithuanian University of Health SciencesKaunasLithuania
  2. 2.Department of Physics, Mathematics and BiophysicsLithuanian University of Health SciencesKaunasLithuania
  3. 3.Department of Electric Power SystemsKaunas University of TechnologyKaunasLithuania
  4. 4.Department of Intelligent SystemsHalmstad UniversityHalmstadSweden

Personalised recommendations