View in EDS

Effects of different calibration schedules on the test-retest differences of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer 6450.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of different calibration schedules on the test-retest differences of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer 6450.
Authors: Hahm, Jennifer1,2 (AUTHOR), Bressmann, Tim1 (AUTHOR) tim.bressmann@utoronto.ca
Source: Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 2022, Vol. 36 Issue 2/3, p292-300. 9p.
Subject Terms: *Speech audiometry, *Intelligibility of speech, *Speech evaluation, Statistical reliability, Physiological aspects of speech, Calibration, Automatic speech recognition, Transducers
Abstract: Nasometry is used to assess nasality in speech but it is unclear whether overly frequent recalibration of the instrument adds measurement errors. The goal of the present research study was to describe the effect of the Nasometer 6450 calibration on the nasalance scores of repeated recordings. In a first experiment, the Nasometer calibration values stored in the computer's registry were manipulated to investigate the impact on nasalance scores. In the second experiment, a set of pre-recorded speech samples was re-recorded 40 times with a Nasometer 6450 in 4 different calibration regimens: Short-term repeated recordings without (R1) and with recalibration (R2C), and long-term repeated recordings over 10 days without (R3) and with recalibration (R4C). The first experiment showed that, compared to a calibration value of 1.0, a value of 0.9 resulted in nasalance scores that were on average 3 points lower while a calibration value of 1.1 resulted in scores that were 0.5 points higher. The results of the second experiment showed test-retest differences of less than 2 nasalance points for 91% of the data for a non-nasal stimulus. For a nasal stimulus, 91% of data were within 5 points for R3 and R4C. The results suggested that frequent recalibration of the Nasometer may slightly increase test-retest differences of nasalance scores. An alternative procedure for verifying microphone balance without recalibration is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Nasometry is used to assess nasality in speech but it is unclear whether overly frequent recalibration of the instrument adds measurement errors. The goal of the present research study was to describe the effect of the Nasometer 6450 calibration on the nasalance scores of repeated recordings. In a first experiment, the Nasometer calibration values stored in the computer's registry were manipulated to investigate the impact on nasalance scores. In the second experiment, a set of pre-recorded speech samples was re-recorded 40 times with a Nasometer 6450 in 4 different calibration regimens: Short-term repeated recordings without (R1) and with recalibration (R2C), and long-term repeated recordings over 10 days without (R3) and with recalibration (R4C). The first experiment showed that, compared to a calibration value of 1.0, a value of 0.9 resulted in nasalance scores that were on average 3 points lower while a calibration value of 1.1 resulted in scores that were 0.5 points higher. The results of the second experiment showed test-retest differences of less than 2 nasalance points for 91% of the data for a non-nasal stimulus. For a nasal stimulus, 91% of data were within 5 points for R3 and R4C. The results suggested that frequent recalibration of the Nasometer may slightly increase test-retest differences of nasalance scores. An alternative procedure for verifying microphone balance without recalibration is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:02699206
DOI:10.1080/02699206.2021.1974094