Ground-truth validation of the “earbuds method” for measuring acoustic nasalance

Among the variety of methodological tools available for quantifying the degree of nasalization, nasometry has remained a popular choice for both academic and clinical research on speech due to its relatively low cost, portability, ease of use, and interpretability. In its simplest form, nasometry involves two microphones that independently capture the acoustic radiation from the mouth and nose. Recently, a method was proposed by Stewart and Kohlberger [(2017). Lang. Doc. Conserv. 11, 49-80] of using earbuds to achieve a similar result. Although the method has been widely used since, most notably in the context of linguistic fieldwork, it has yet to be tested against ground-truth measurements of acoustic nasalance from a commercially established device; the current study attempts to provide this ground-truth comparison. A wide variety of characteristics of the relationship between nasalance measurements created using acoustic data co-registered from a commercial nasometer, silicone earbuds, and flat earbuds are thoroughly examined. The results suggest that the "earbuds method" may provide reliable estimates of nasality when assessed at a global level (i.e., overall averages, relatively high/low nasalance scores coinciding with the presence/absence of nasalization), but that the accuracy of these estimates may decline at more fine-grained levels in different ways that are outlined in the discussion.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
2024-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0028122
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.55
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ground-truth validation of the “earbuds method” for measuring acoustic nasalance

Christopher Carignan
1 citations
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
0.55
article

Ground-truth validation of the “earbuds method” for measuring acoustic nasalance

Christopher Carignan
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Among the variety of methodological tools available for quantifying the degree of nasalization, nasometry has remained a popular choice for both academic and clinical research on speech due to its relatively low cost, portability, ease of use, and interpretability. In its simplest form, nasometry involves two microphones that independently capture the acoustic radiation from the mouth and nose. Recently, a method was proposed by Stewart and Kohlberger [(2017). Lang. Doc. Conserv. 11, 49-80] of using earbuds to achieve a similar result. Although the method has been widely used since, most notably in the context of linguistic fieldwork, it has yet to be tested against ground-truth measurements of acoustic nasalance from a commercially established device; the current study attempts to provide this ground-truth comparison. A wide variety of characteristics of the relationship between nasalance measurements created using acoustic data co-registered from a commercial nasometer, silicone earbuds, and flat earbuds are thoroughly examined. The results suggest that the "earbuds method" may provide reliable estimates of nasality when assessed at a global level (i.e., overall averages, relatively high/low nasalance scores coinciding with the presence/absence of nasalization), but that the accuracy of these estimates may decline at more fine-grained levels in different ways that are outlined in the discussion.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaVol. 156(2)
University College London (GB)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
0.55
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.