PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8943135

ALBERT: a real-time visual feedback computer tool for professional vocal development.

Abstract

This paper considers the nature of real-time visual feedback for vocal analysis and development and presents a new software tool, called ALBERT (acoustic and laryngeal biofeedback enhancement in real time), designed for use with those developing their voices professionally. This tool embodies several important issues in the provision of real-time visual feedback, including: (a) support for user-configurable visual displays, (b) the ability to use colour as a complementary or sole medium for the presentation of information, (c) the ability to combine algorithmically any number of vocal parameters to create a new single parameter representative of some aspect of vocal measurement which may be displayed and updated in real time, and (d) a rate of information update which may be altered by the user at any point for the most appropriate use according to the context of the feedback task. Several examples of system use are given, including the real-time display of fundamental frequency, jitter, and larynx closed quotient (CQ) parameters in a variety of visual configurations. Several examples are given relating to developing professional voice users, including the derivation of a new parameter which reflects the measure of progress of subjects along a linear correlation line between CQ and the level of energy in the singer's formant region.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Rossiter, D M Howard. 1996. ALBERT: a real-time visual feedback computer tool for professional vocal development.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8943135/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evaluation of a computerized polysomnographic system.

Computerized polysomnographic systems have came into common use in sleep laboratories around the world. Despite potential advantages over standard paper polysomnography, these computerized systems have been minimally evaluated as to accuracy, analysis time, or cost effectiveness when compared to paper. We evaluated the Healthdyne ALICE 3 system for comparability to paper polysomnography in sleep quantification and technician analysis time. Fifty patients were recorded simultaneously both on paper and on the ALICE 3 system and analyzed blindly with summary data from these records being quantified and compared. Five additional patients were studied for epoch-by-epoch analysis. Score-rescore assessments were accomplished for both groups. The results indicate that when allowed to autoscore, this computerized system produced substantial errors in sleep staging (REM sleep time 56.4 + 4.9 minutes vs 73.2 + 8.4 minutes for paper versus computer). This was the case for respiratory (AHI of 26.5 + 4.3 vs 15.3 + 2.6 for paper vs computer) and arousal assessment as well. However, with editing, similar results to those obtained with paper were achieved (REM sleep time -56.4 + 4.9 vs 59.0 + 4.6; AHI -26.5 + 4.3 vs 26.1 + 4.7 for paper and computer respectively), with differences rarely exceeding score-rescore discrepancies. Analysis time was substantially reduced by use of the computer (172.6 + 9.9 vs 79.7 + 4.8 minutes for paper vs computer). Epoch-by-epoch analysis revealed a trend to score toward wakefulness or lighter sleep on computer compared to paper although the differences were small. Respiratory, arousal and PLM scoring were quite similar. In conclusion, this study suggests that the ALICE 3 system with editing can produce results similar to those obtained with paper.

Computers