ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the differences in important parameters between the articulation assessment and training system of intelligently extracted speech with those from the Praat acoustic software and those manually extracted.Methods:The speech of thirty-two normal subjects was captured using the intelligent articulation assessment and training system and using Praat acoustic software. The former analyzed the mean fundamental frequencies (mF0s), the first formant peaks (F1s) and the second formant peak (F2s) of the sustained vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/. The speech parameters collected by the traditional Praat software were extracted and analyzed by professionals. The two tools′ consistency in terms of these important acoustic parameters was analyzed.Results:The results with all 32 subjects when retested returned ICC values above 0.9 with all three vowels with the exception of mF0 for /u/ (ICC=0.75), indicating excellent retest reliability for the articulation assessment and training system. The ICC values also indicated excellent consistency between the two kinds of software in analyzing mF0, F1 and F2 of the three vowels. The mF0, F1, F2, FCR, VAI, tongue spacing, VSA, and mandibular spacing of all three vowels were mostly distributed within the 95% confidence interval of the data points in Bland-Altman plots, indicating the high accuracy of both acoustic analysis systems in speech measurement. The mean fundamental frequency values of the male long vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/ were all significantly lower than for the female long versions.Conclusions:The retest reliability of the articulation assessment and training system was good, and the results of the articulation check in the natural state were in good consistency compared to the Praat check and were interchangeable in the articulation check.