Ben Barsties V Latoszek, Clara Z Lammertz, Shaheen N Awan, Ferdinand Binkofski, Svetlana Hetjens
{"title":"The Accuracy of Smartphone Recordings for Clinical Voice Diagnostics in Acoustic Voice Quality Assessments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ben Barsties V Latoszek, Clara Z Lammertz, Shaheen N Awan, Ferdinand Binkofski, Svetlana Hetjens","doi":"10.1044/2025_AJSLP-25-00140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Clinical voice quality assessments typically use external microphones meeting technical standards for instrumental assessment of voice. As smartphones advance, this study aimed to determine their suitability for voice recordings through a systematic review with meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Three database searches were conducted, ranging from their inception to December 2024, as well as a manual search. Cross-sectional studies were included on widely used clinical acoustic voice quality measures of the software Praat (i.e., jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio [HNR], smoothed cepstral peak prominence [CPPS], and acoustic voice quality index [AVQI]).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found 10 eligible research studies with a total of 379 participants who were simultaneously compared between a clinical recording system (CRS) and different smartphones by Apple and Samsung products. All included studies focused on individuals with vocally healthy voices, while four of the studies also included those with voice disorders. In comparison with CRS, iPhones revealed significant differences and large effect sizes in HNR (mean difference of 2.20, 95% CI [0.59, 3.82], <i>p</i> = .008, Cohen's <i>d</i> = 2.54) and in AVQI (mean difference of -0.53, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.06], <i>p</i> = .027, Cohen's <i>d</i> = -1.99), but in the direct comparison between Apple and Samsung mobile device recordings, significant differences and large effect sizes were found in jitter (mean difference of -0.17, 95% CI -0.27, -0.08, <i>p</i> < .001, Cohen's <i>d</i> = -1.18) and CPPS (mean difference of 0.87, 95% CI [0.20, 1.53], <i>p</i> = .011, Cohen's <i>d</i> = 1.26). Recordings with Samsung products showed only significant differences and a large effect size with CRS in jitter (mean difference of -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.03], <i>p</i> = .019, Cohen's <i>d</i> = -0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present meta-analysis indicated some inconsistency in the outcomes of acoustic voice quality parameters between smartphone recordings and CRS. While acoustic measurements are frequently used in clinical voice assessments and smartphones are widely available, it is important to note that for certain parameters, current smartphone recordings may not yet match the precision of CRSs for voice quality analyses.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30200029.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-25-00140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Clinical voice quality assessments typically use external microphones meeting technical standards for instrumental assessment of voice. As smartphones advance, this study aimed to determine their suitability for voice recordings through a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Method: Three database searches were conducted, ranging from their inception to December 2024, as well as a manual search. Cross-sectional studies were included on widely used clinical acoustic voice quality measures of the software Praat (i.e., jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio [HNR], smoothed cepstral peak prominence [CPPS], and acoustic voice quality index [AVQI]).
Results: We found 10 eligible research studies with a total of 379 participants who were simultaneously compared between a clinical recording system (CRS) and different smartphones by Apple and Samsung products. All included studies focused on individuals with vocally healthy voices, while four of the studies also included those with voice disorders. In comparison with CRS, iPhones revealed significant differences and large effect sizes in HNR (mean difference of 2.20, 95% CI [0.59, 3.82], p = .008, Cohen's d = 2.54) and in AVQI (mean difference of -0.53, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.06], p = .027, Cohen's d = -1.99), but in the direct comparison between Apple and Samsung mobile device recordings, significant differences and large effect sizes were found in jitter (mean difference of -0.17, 95% CI -0.27, -0.08, p < .001, Cohen's d = -1.18) and CPPS (mean difference of 0.87, 95% CI [0.20, 1.53], p = .011, Cohen's d = 1.26). Recordings with Samsung products showed only significant differences and a large effect size with CRS in jitter (mean difference of -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.03], p = .019, Cohen's d = -0.84).
Conclusions: The present meta-analysis indicated some inconsistency in the outcomes of acoustic voice quality parameters between smartphone recordings and CRS. While acoustic measurements are frequently used in clinical voice assessments and smartphones are widely available, it is important to note that for certain parameters, current smartphone recordings may not yet match the precision of CRSs for voice quality analyses.
目的：临床语音质量评估通常使用符合技术标准的外部麦克风进行语音仪器评估。随着智能手机的发展，本研究旨在通过荟萃分析的系统回顾来确定它们是否适合录音。方法：从数据库建立到2024年12月进行了三次数据库检索，并进行了人工检索。横断面研究纳入了广泛使用的临床声学语音质量测量软件Praat（即抖动、闪烁、谐波噪声比[HNR]、平滑倒谱峰突出[CPPS]和声学语音质量指数[AVQI]）。结果：我们找到了10项符合条件的研究，共有379名参与者，他们同时在临床记录系统（CRS）和苹果和三星产品的不同智能手机之间进行了比较。所有纳入的研究都集中在声音健康的人身上，而四项研究还包括声音障碍的人。与CRS相比，iphone在HNR（平均差异为2.20,95% CI [0.59, 3.82], p = 0.008, Cohen’s d = 2.54）和AVQI（平均差异为-0.53,95% CI [-1.00, -0.06], p = 0.027, Cohen’s d = -1.99）方面存在显著差异和较大效应，但在苹果和三星移动设备记录的直接比较中，抖动（平均差异为-0.17,95% CI为-0.27,-0.08,p < 0.001）方面存在显著差异和较大效应。Cohen’s d = -1.18)和CPPS（平均差异0.87,95% CI [0.20, 1.53], p = 0.011, Cohen’s d = 1.26）。三星产品的记录仅显示抖动与CRS的显著差异和较大的效应大小（平均差异为-0.16,95% CI [-0.29, -0.03], p = 0.019, Cohen's d = -0.84）。结论：本荟萃分析表明，智能手机录音和CRS之间的声学语音质量参数结果存在一些不一致。虽然声学测量经常用于临床语音评估，智能手机也广泛使用，但重要的是要注意，对于某些参数，目前的智能手机记录可能还无法与CRSs的语音质量分析精度相匹配。补充资料：https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30200029。
期刊介绍：
Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
