Estimating Vocal Effort from the Aerodynamics of Labial Fricatives: A

700_3document >G A/, ?H@yR83d3e3 ?iiTb,ff?HXb+B2M+2f?H@yR83d3e3 am#KBii2/ QM R9 a2T kyRd >GBb  KmHiB@/Bb+BTHBM`v QT2M ++2bb `+?Bp2 7Q` i?2 /2TQbBi M/ /Bbb2KBMiBQM Q7 b+B@

2MiB}+ `2b2`+? /Q+mK2Mib- r?2i?2` i?2v `2 Tm#@

HBb?2/ Q` MQiX h?2 /Q+mK2Mib Kv +QK2 7`QK

i2+?BM; M/ `2b2`+? BMbiBimiBQMb BM 6`M+2 Q` #`Q/- Q` 7`QK Tm#HB+ Q` T`Bpi2 `2b2`+? +2Mi2`bX

G
ö`+?Bp2 Qmp2`i2 THm`B/Bb+BTHBMB`2>G- 2bi

/2biBMû2 m /ûT
¬i 2i ¨ H /BzmbBQM /2 /Q+mK2Mib b+B2MiB}[m2b /2 MBp2m `2+?2`+?2- Tm#HBûb Qm MQM- ûKMMi /2b ûi#HBbb2K2Mib /
ö2Mb2B;M2K2Mi 2i /2 `2+?2`+?2 7`MÏBb Qm ûi`M;2`b- /2b H#Q`iQB`2b

Tm#HB+b Qm T`BpûbX

1biBKiBM; oQ+H 1zQ`i 7`QK i?2 2`Q/vMKB+b Q7

G#BH 6`B+iBp2b,  62bB#BHBiv aim/v

hQ +Bi2 i?Bb p2`bBQM, uQ?MM J2vM/B2`- MBi 1H >DD- JB+?2H SBi2`KMM- h?B2``v G2;Qm- MiQBM2 :BQpMMBX 1biBKiBM; oQ+H 1zQ`i 7`QK i?2 2`Q/vMKB+b Q7 G#BH 6`B+iBp2b,  62bB#BHBiv aim/vX CQm`MH Q7 oQB+2- kyR3- jk UeV- TTXddRX2R8@ddRX2k9X RyXRyRefDXDpQB+2XkyRdXy3XyRyX ?H@yR83d3e3 ESTIMATING VOCAL EFFORT FROM THE AERODYNAMICS OF LABIAL FRICATIVES: Yohann Meynadier1, Anita El Hajj1, Michel Pitermann1, 1, Antoine Giovanni12

1Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, LPL, Aix

2 airflow resistance;

Study D

Results and Conclusion:

1

INTRODUCTION

Vocal fol

2 of -The The parameter indicative of the effective force necessary to produce ; close to 0 for vowels 3 normal subject, , 4 R

OBJECTIVE

The goal of

this 5 fricative

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This feasibility study was

accuracy 3/s), 6 T D-z$z/ 7 3/s) 3/s (RStudio Inc.; Boston, . The

EXPERIMENT 1

The efficiency of an indirect measurement of Rglo via Rlab of fricatives

Results

Table 1

8 decreases when

Discussion

The

9 even more significant than for /f/. or Frazer 10 constriction is long enough. Nevertheless,

EXPERIMENT 2

Experiment 2

11

Results

Airflow

The results on airflow v

3/s3/s

Air p

As represented in

- 12 22.

Airway resistances

Means and statistical differences

3/s 3/s

3/s) 3/s)

3/s in Threshold

3/s) 3/s). For

3/s)3/s

13

Figure 4 represents the linear regression

2

Discussion

The objective of thi

14

Fl

15 features

CONCLUSION

The general hypothesis of our work was that when a 16 inexperienced subjects producing [1]

J Speech 2004; 551.

J Voice. 2012; 26(5): 665.e9

J Voice.

Ann

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;

J Voice. 2015; 29(5): 530

Speech Production and Speech Modelling.

Les Cahiers d'Oto

.1990;

J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 140(1): 45.

J . 2016; 140(1): 369. 17 [12]

Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016; 21: 1

J Phon. 1973; 1(1):

J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97(5 Pt

J Acoust Soc Am.

Logop Phoniatr

J200 (5): J.

J Acoust Soc Am.

1992;

Folia Phoniatr Logo. 1996;

J Voice. 2001; Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;

L'aérodynamique de la voix

J Speech

. 18 [25]

J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107(6): 3438

J Acoust Soc Am. 635.

J Acoust Soc Am.

J Speech Hear.

J Phon.

J Acoust Soc Am.

J Speech Hear Disord.

J Voice; 1995; 9(2): 149155.

Eur J Disord

. 1995; 30(4): 435449. J

J Voice. 1992; 6(3): 235245.

Proc . Marseille, France;

Logop Phoniatr Voco.

19 [38] Proceedings of Larynx 97. Marseille, France; 1997: 6972. are involved. Biometrika. 1947; 34(135. Proc.

J Speech Lang Hear

J Speech Lang

208.
Approximating Subglottal Pressure from Oral Pressure: A Methodological Study. ccessed April 2017.

Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Phonetica. 210.
J . 1979; 7: 357373.

J Acoust

801.

Nord J Ling.

J Acoust Soc Am. 1623.

Logoped Phoniatr. 1982; 16:

Laryngeal function in phonation and respiration. Boston, USA: College 20 [52]

Speech Production: Models, Phonetic Processes,

. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia: Psychology

J Voice. 1996; 10(3): 236

Table 1: Difference between Ps and Po in hPa (ǻ ǻ

0.64 0.83

slope t(34)=4.98 p = 1.81e-5 t(33)=7.79 p = 5.64e-9 t(34)=10.50 p = 3.31e-12 t(28)=11.84 p = 2.06e-12 t(135)=72.37 p < 2.2e-16 t(21)=35.60 p < 2e-16

0.32 0.20

slope p t(33)=3.27 p = 2.5e-3 t(33)=4.11 p = 2.5e-4 t(34)=5.33 p = 6.37e-6 t(28)=2.68 p = 1.2e-2 t(135)=36.29 p < 2e-16 t(21)=23.24 p < 2e-16 (in 3/s) p p p (0.07)ns (0.05)ns (0.05)< 0.01 (0.04) (0.07)ns (0.07)ns (0.08)< 0.01 (0.10) (0.13)ns (0.55)ns (0.19)< 0.01 (0.28) 21

Table 4 (in hPa)

p p p (0.38)< 0.01 (0.69)< 0.01 (2.13)< 0.01 (3.89) (0.46)< 0.01 (0.88)< 0.01 (2.44)< 0.01 (3.71) (0.61)0.015 (0.58)< 0.01 (1.50)< 0.01 (1.98) (0.41)< 0.01 (0.78)< 0.01 (2.45)< 0.01 (2.66) (0.43)< 0.01 (0.78)< 0.01 (2.66)< 0.01 (1.72) 3/s) p p p (3.48)< 0.01 (3.85)< 0.01 (9.17)< 0.01 (9.81) (4.20)< 0.01 (9.02)< 0.01 (12.90)ns (9.31) (2.95)0.017 (5.06)< 0.01 (8.32)< 0.01 (7.34) (1.70)ns (1.64)< 0.01 (4.89)ns (6.39) (1.71)< 0.01 (2.85)< 0.01 (9.20)< 0.01 (15.01)

Figure

22
3/s 23

Figure 4