Part 1: Fundamental Frequency of Voicing (F0)

Subject F0 (sentences) SD (Sentences) F0 (sustained vowel)

E.B 182.12 Hz 40.35 Hz 255.12 Hz

J.E. 129.07 Hz 33.2 Hz 129.67 Hz

K.L. 137.77 Hz 45.76 Hz 210.95 Hz

Our F0 for sustained vowel all matched with the expected average for male and female F0s. The
sentence F0 is lower for K.L. and E.L., which just reflects the variance that occurs when we are
speaking rather than the stability of a sustained vowel. K.L.s standard deviation is slightly over
the average, but J.E.s and E.B.s standard deviations were within functional limits.

Part 2: Perturbation and F0

J.E.
Cycle # Period (s) Fi (Hz) Fi - Fi +1 (Hz) Jitter Factor

1 .007777 128.58

2 .007812 128.01 0.57

3 .007745 129.12 1.11

4 .007745 129.12 0.00

5 .007744 129.13 0.01

6 .007688 130.07 0.84

7 .007744 129.13 0.84

8 .007678 130.24 1.11

9 .007745 129.12 1.12

10 .007744 129.13 0.01

Average .007742 129.145 0.62
CSL Jitter (RAP): CSL Shimmer: Pulse Jitter PRAAT Jitter Factor Hand-Calculated
0.203% .348 dB (RAP): .363% (RAP): .23% Jitter: .48%

Calculations: 100 x [1/9 x (.57 + 1.11 + .00 + .01 + .84 + .84 + 1.11 + 1.12 + .01)] / [1/10 x
(128.58 + 128.01 + 129.12 + 129.12 + 129.13 + 130.07 + 129.13 + 130.24 + 129.12 + 129.13)] =
.048%
The jitter factor that I hand calculated (.48) is higher than the CSL RAP (.203), which is even
higher than the rap value listed as 0.167 in the voice report for PRAAT. However, when I
calculated the Jitter factor by dividing the pitchs standard deviation by its mean as listed in the
voice report, I got a value of .23, which is closer to the CSL value. I think the reason for
discrepancy between my calculations and the computer-generated measures lies in the variability
of where I placed my cursor when selecting the values for the period. The jitter and shimmer
factors (no matter how they are calculated) fit well within the range provided by Brockman, et al
(2008). The pulse jitter had a higher value than modal register jitter and the pulse shimmer was
nearly three times the value of modal shimmer. This makes sense considering that modal register
has greater periodicity than pulse register. Also, since pulse register requires greater effort for me
to produce than modal register, there are bound to be more variations in the acoustic parameters.

K.L.
 Cycle # Period Fi (Hz) Fi - Fi +1 (Hz) Jitter Factor

1 .004506 209.427

2 .004410 209.724 .297

3 .004554 209.338 .386

4 .004410 209.400 .062

5 .004458 209.387 .013

6 .004554 209.398 .011

7 .004458 209.445 .047

8 .004506 209.474 .022

9 .004506 209.715 .241

10 .004554 209.697 .018

Average .004492 209.501 .122

CSL Jitter (RAP): CSL Shimmer: Pulse Jitter (RAP): PRAAT Jitter Factor Hand-Calculated
2.67% .789 dB 3.904% (RAP) .214% Jitter: .058%

Calculations: 100 x [1/9 x (.061 + .084 + .018 + .04 + .014 + .042 + .022 + .097 + .109)] / [1/10
x (225.390 + 225.329 + 225.245 + 225.227 + 225.267 + 225.281 + 225.239 + 225.217 + 225.314
+ 225.424)] = .058%
My hand calculations and the PRAAT jitter scores are much closer to each other than to the CSL
rating. I think this may be due to the fact that I had some difficulty with a lot of my CSL
measurements due to the closeness of the microphone to the computer. My PRAAT score is
larger than my hand score but that might be due to the fact that PRAAT can calculate smaller
numbers completely where I rounded many of my answers and PRAAT can also ensure exact
measurements of Fi. My CSL jitter and shimmer did not match with what was expected from the
Brockmann, et al. (2008) measurements because they were so large, however I think that was
due to discrepancies in the measuring equipment. My handwritten and PRAAT calculated jitter
does match with the expected measurements from Brockmann, et al. (2008). My pulse jitter is
larger than my CSL, hand calculated, and PRAAT levels which makes sense because pulse
register is more aperiodic than my normal voice so there would be a greater amount of frequency
variation from cycle to cycle.

E.B.
 Cycle # Period (s) Fi (Hz) Fi - Fi +1 (Hz) Jitter Factor

1 .004103 246.20

2 .004071 246.33 .13

3 .004071 246.42 .09

4 .004038 246.38 .04

5 .004006 246.35 .03

6 .004071 246.32 .03

7 .003973 246.38 .06

8 .004071 246.43 .05

9 .004071 246.32 .11

10 .004071 246.14 .18

Average .004055 246.33 .08

CSL Jitter CSL Shimmer: Pulse Jitter (RAP): PRAAT Jitter Hand Calculation
(RAP): 1.658% .621 dB 9.925% (RAP): .156% 0.032%
Calculations: 100 x [1/9 (0.13 + 0.09 + 0.04 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.06 + 0.05 + 0.11 + 0.1)] / [1/10
(246.20 + 246.33 + 246.42 + 246.38 +246.35 + 246.32 + 246.38 + 246.43 + 246.32 + 246.14)] =
0.032%

The CSL program calculated a jitter factor (RAP) of 1.658% for a sustained /i/ whereas the
PRAAT calculated the RAP for a sustained /a/ as 0.156%. The discrepancy between these
figures is likely due to a number of factors. Foremost, the CSL data selection incorporated a
significantly longer sample of cycles (approximately five seconds) as compared to the 10 cycles
analyzed by the PRAAT data. The other potential causal factor may very well be that in
comparing different vowels on different equipment using different programs introduces too
many variables in the analysis causing unreliable results.

When comparing the pulse jitter (sustained /a/) obtained from the CSL (9.925%) with that from
the PRAAT for the same phonation (sustained /a/ - 0.156%), there is an expected difference due
to the marked difference in modal register and pulse register. One would expect a significantly
higher jitter for pulse register due to the inherent aperiodic nature.

The study by Brockmann, et al. (2008) says that there is a converse relationship between
shimmer and SPL so that as phonation intensity decreases below 80 dB SPL, the shimmer is
increases markedly. My data for shimmer (0.621 dB) where my phonation SPL was 58.52 dB
SPL (not reported in tables above) provided by the CSL program is not as high as the authors
report this figure should be. A potential causal factor for this discrepancy may be due to the
discrete placement of the cursor while collecting the data for the hand calculations. As well, the
calculations for jitter that PRAAT and CSD use likely involve unrounded figures as compared to
the hand-calculation, which relied on PRAAT to present unrounded output data. Assuming that
PRAAT displayed a rounded number, this would likely have an affect on the hand-
calculation. Regarding the relationship between jitter and SPL, the authors found that jitter
increases with SPL below 75 dB SPL. My reported jitter (1.658%) correlates with the authors
findings.

References

Brockmann, Carding, & Drinnan (2008). Voice loudness and gender effects on jitter and
shimmer in healthy adults. J. of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 51. 1152-
1160.