Darrell Wong Susan Hensley
Recording and Res. Ctr., Denver Ctr. for the Performing Arts, 1245 Champa St., Denver, CO 80204
Ingo Titze
Recording Res. Ctr., Denver, CO and Univ. of Iowa
Lorraine O. Ramig
Recording Res. Ctr., Denver, CO and Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Martin Milder
Univ. of Iowa
A study was made comparing two methods for obtaining the voice range profile, a clinical tool used to establish a subject's range of intensity and fundamental frequency. One method used a clinician with a pitch pipe to elicit and motivate the subject. The other method used an instructional videotape and a computer. The computer was completely automated, providing visual feedback of the voice range profile, and evaluating each phonation objectively using the criterion of fundamental frequency stability, intensity stability, and duration. The computerized method used a cepstrum algorithm to estimate fundamental frequency, and the intensity was measured by calculating the variance of the signal. The results presented here compare the two methods and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. Benefits of the computerized method include real time visual feedback of phonatory effort, objective acceptability criterion, and no requirement to phonate at pitches in any particular order. A drawback to the computerized method is its sensitivity to subharmonics. [Work supported by NIH Grant No. DC000-387.]