Discrimination between Modal, Breathy and Pressed Voice for Single Vowels Using Neck-Surface Vibration Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using neck-surface acceleration signals to discriminate between modal, breathy and pressed voice. Voice data for five English single vowels were collected from 31 female native Canadian English speakers using a portable Neck Surface Accelerometer (NSA) and a condenser microphone. Firstly, auditory-perceptual ratings were conducted by five clinically-certificated Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) to categorize voice type using the audio recordings. Intra- and inter-rater analyses were used to determine the SLPs' reliability for the perceptual categorization task. Mixed-type samples were screened out, and congruent samples were kept for the subsequent classification task. Secondly, features such as spectral harmonics, jitter, shimmer and spectral entropy were extracted from the NSA data. Supervised learning algorithms were used to map feature vectors to voice type categories. A feature wrapper strategy was used to evaluate the contribution of each feature or feature combinations to the classification between different voice types. The results showed that the highest classification accuracy on a full set was 82.5%. The breathy voice classification accuracy was notably greater (approximately 12%) than those of the other two voice types. Shimmer and spectral entropy were the best correlated metrics for the classification accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".