![register cepstral voices register cepstral voices](https://www.mdpi.com/electronics/electronics-08-00924/article_deploy/html/images/electronics-08-00924-g001.png)
In the consideration of three group classification (breathy vs. Correct classification of rough vs nonrough voice samples was 82.2% (sensitivity 0.80 and specificity 0.833). The CPP High-Low difference value was observed to be a highly significant predictor, with negative values for this parameter characteristic of a dominant subharmonic in the voice signal and the perception of diplophonic, rough voice.
![register cepstral voices register cepstral voices](https://www.cepstral.com/media/images/personal/regkey_ex.jpg)
All voice samples were analyzed using a a two-stage cepstral analysis process in which a CPP High-Low difference value was obtained by identifying cepstral peaks above and below a lower limit for expected F 0 (150 Hz for females and 90 Hz for males), called CPP High and CPP Low respectively. It was hypothesized that a dual-stage search for cepstral peak prominences (CPP's) above and below specified quefrency/F 0 cutoffs would result in a CPP difference that would be characteristic of the rough, diplophonic voice type.Ĭentral one-second portions of sustained vowel /a/ productions were obtained from 90 subjects (rough, breathy, and normophonic voices).
![register cepstral voices register cepstral voices](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S089219972030059X-gr2.jpg)
The objective of this study was to investigate the ability of a two-stage method of cepstral peak identification to effectively discriminate rough vs breathy vs typical voice in sustained vowel productions.