Voice Loudness and Gender Effects

on Jitter and Shimmer in Healthy Adults

Meike Brockmann
Claudio Storck
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate voice loudness and gender effects on
University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
jitter and shimmer in healthy young adults because previous descriptions have been
inconsistent.
Paul N. Carding Method: Fifty-seven healthy adults (28 women, 29 men) aged 20–40 years were
Michael J. Drinnan included in this cross-sectional single-cohort study. Three phonations of /a/ at soft,
Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, medium, and loud individual loudness were recorded and analyzed using PRAAT
Great Britain software (P. Boersma & D. Weeninkk, 2006). Voice loudness and gender effects on
measured sound pressure level, fundamental frequency, jitter, and shimmer were
assessed through the use of descriptive and inferential (analysis of variance) statistics.
Results: Jitter and shimmer significantly increased with decreasing voice loudness,
especially in phonations below 75 dB and 80 dB. In soft and medium phonation, men
were generally louder and showed significantly less shimmer. However, men had
higher jitter measures when phonating softly. Gender differences in jitter and shimmer
at medium loudness may be mainly linked to different habitual voice loudness levels.
Conclusion: This pragmatic study shows significant voice loudness and gender effects
on perturbation. In clinical assessment, requesting phonations above 80 dB at
comparable loudness between genders would enhance measurement reliability.
However, voice loudness and gender effects in other age groups, in disordered voices,
or when a minimal loudness is requested should be further investigated.
KEY WORDS: voice loudness, gender, jitter, shimmer, acoustic assessment

I
n voice clinics and research, voice perturbation analysis is considered
an easily applicable, noninvasive, and inexpensive measurement of
vocal output that may complement other laryngeal diagnostic methods
(such as videolaryngostroboscopy). Voice perturbation parameters, such
as jitter and shimmer, are routinely measured in acoustic voice assess-
ment as recommended by European and American research associations
(Dejonckere et al., 2001; Titze, 1995). These measures indirectly assess
laryngeal function by quantifying acoustic correlates of irregular vocal
fold vibration. Fundamental frequency (F0) describes human voice pitch
and indicates the number of vocal fold vibratory cycles per second (Hz).
Sound pressure level (SPL) measures voice intensity in decibels (dB). Jitter
measures F0 perturbation, and shimmer measures SPL perturbation,
caused by vibratory variations from one vocal fold cycle to the next.
Voice perturbation analysis has been widely used in diagnostics, voice
treatment documentation, and characterization of acoustic voice proper-
ties of specific groups such as elderly people (Hodge, Colton, & Kelley,
2001). Jitter and shimmer also appear to relate to perceived voice “rough-
ness” and “hoarseness” (Dejonckere et al., 1996). These parameters have
also been shown to be greater in disordered voices and to discriminate be-
tween healthy and pathologic voices in some voice disorder types (Askenfelt
& Hammarberg, 1986; Schoentgen, 1982). Acoustic analysis has been

1152 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 51 • 1152–1160 • October 2008 • D American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
1092-4388/08/5105-1152
widely used to document voice changes following voice values at low frequency and SPLs. Despite the consistent
therapy (Roy et al., 2002) and medical, irradiation, or sur- description of higher voice perturbation in lower SPL, the
gical treatment (Hanson, Jiang, Chen, & Pauloski, 1997; present characterization remains incomplete because
Rovirosa et al., 2000). Perturbation analysis has also been (a) jitter and shimmer have been averaged for large or
used to compare benefits of different intervention types undocumented SPL ranges, (b) acoustic parameters and
(Eksteen, Rieger, Nesbitt, & Seikaly, 2003). statistical tests have not been described, and/or (c) groups
have been small and highly inconsistent.
Limits in Application Gender. Evidence regarding gender effects in jitter
and shimmer values is also inconclusive. In previous stud-
Despite its ubiquitous use, acoustic signal pertur-
ies, women have displayed minimally less shimmer and
bation measurements appear to have significant limita-
more jitter (Deem, Manning, Knack, & Matesich, 1989;
tions. For example, Zyski, Bull, McDonald, and Johns
Sorensen & Horii, 1983) but also smaller absolute jitter
(1984) described limited sensitivity and specificity when
values than men (Jafari, Till, Truesdell, & Law-Till, 1993;
investigating and comparing four different jitter and shim-
Ludlow et al., 1987). In contrast, similar jitter and shim-
mer measurement types. Their study showed that be-
mer were found in women and men at “comfortable pitch,”
tween 21% and 77% of mean values in voice-disordered
whereas jitter was more influenced by changing F0 in men
adults were within the normal voice range. Carding et al.
(Orlikoff & Baken, 1990). However, these studies are lim-
(2004) also reported poor to moderate retest reliability
ited because of (a) small numbers of participants, (b) pho-
and poor sensitivity to change. Despite the use of the
nation at prescribed F0 levels, and/or (c) lack of reporting
same jitter ( jitter %) and shimmer (shimmer dB) types,
of the produced F0 and SPL levels.
reported normative values vary considerably between
studies, thus hindering comparisons (see Table1). Poten- Clinical relevance. In acoustic voice assessment, pa-
tially substantial SPL and gender influences have been tients are commonly requested to phonate “/a / at com-
previously identified but characterized incompletely or fortable loudness and pitch,” and usually SPL is not
inconsistently. controlled for (Dejonckere et al., 2001; Titze, 1995). Even
though men have been shown to phonate louder than
women in this situation and patients tend to vary voice
The Influence of Voice Loudness intensity between sessions (Brown, Morris, & Murry,
1996), acoustic analysis programs do not provide SPL-
and Gender corrected normative thresholds (Boersma & Weenink,
Voice loudness. Orlikoff and Kahane (1991) describe 2006; Kay Elemetrics Corp., 1999). If the effects of SPL
an inverse linear relationship of jitter and shimmer to and gender are significant, failure to consider them in
SPL. Their data were obtained from 10 healthy men pho- voice assessments results in a false picture of the acous-
nating at three different prescribed intensity-level ranges tic and, hence, vibratory properties of the patient’s vocal
(60–68 dB, 70–78 dB, and 80–88 dB). Dejonckere (1998) folds. This is especially problematic when acoustic anal-
reported a significant perturbation reduction in louder ysis is used to measure intervention success. Further-
voices when comparing “comfortable loudness and pitch” more, this might delay the patient’s access to appropriate
phonation with “louder” phonation in 55 dysphonic adults further diagnostics and treatment and, in the worst case,
with functional dysphonia or superficial vocal fold pa- may even support false diagnoses. The assessment of gen-
thology. Similarly, other authors (Pabon, 1991; Pabon & der and SPL effects requires measurements of phona-
Plomp, 1988) have reported higher jitter and shimmer tions at a wide range of loudness levels in a sufficiently
large and consistent group and use of adequate recording
methods (Titze, 1995).
Table 1. Reported mean shimmer (dB) and jitter(%) values in gender.

Authors Participants Shimmer (dB) Jitter (%) Study Aims

(Wilkox & Horii, 1980) 20 men 0.47 None The aim of this study was to assess voice loudness
(Horii, 1980) 31 men 0.47 0.61 and gender effects on jitter and shimmer in vowel phona-
SD = 0.34 SD = 0.20 tion in vocally healthy young female and male adults.
(Horii, 1982) 20 men 0.13 0.66
SD = 0.23 SD = 0.18
(Sorensen & Horii, 1983) 20 women 0.33 0.71
SD = 0.22 SD = 0.22
Method
(Jafari et al., 1993) 5 men 0.16–0.22 0.20–0.22 Participants
5 women 0.12–0.14 0.24–0.34
(Ferrand, 1995) 30 women 0.19–0.21 0.446–0.674 Seventy volunteers (35 women, 35 men) between
the ages of 20 and 40 years were recruited from the

Brockmann et al.: Loudness and Gender Effects on Jitter and Shimmer 1153
University Hospital Zurich for participation in the ex- (Sony,TCD-D8) at a sampling rate of 48000 Hz and 16-bit
periment. All participants gave written consent. quantization. Later, each individual phonation was cut
Exclusion criteria. Participants were excluded from out and was anonymously labeled using the software pro-
the study if they presented with a hoarse voice as per- gram Audacity 1.2.4b (Mazzoni et al., 2005).
ceived by the examiner on the day of recording. They Training and experiment. During a training phase of
were also excluded if they (a) reported recent voice prob- up to 10 min, participants were asked to “sustain /a/ for
lems or a voice disorder history, (b) had any previous 5 seconds at comfortable pitch and loudness.” When able
formal voice training or voice therapy, (c) were taking to do this, they were asked to “sustain /a/ for 5 seconds,
medication or had a medical condition that might affect as softly as possible” and then “as loudly as possible.”
normal voice function, (d) were intubated recently for These instructions were chosen to assess voice variance
any surgical intervention, or (e) had undergone surgery in uninfluenced voice function as done similarly in clinical
in the torso, head, and neck region in the last 18 months. practice. After training, when they were able to pho-
These criteria, likely to influence jitter and shimmer val- nate at three recognizably different loudness levels (soft /
ues, were evaluated by questionnaire. Information on medium/loud), participants were recorded phonating /a /
the participants’ smoking habits and native language for 5 s at each level three times. The recording order was
was also collected. randomized in each case.
In addition, participants who were unable to phonate
the sustained vowel /a/ for 5 s at different loudness levels
after 10 min of training were excluded. Voice recordings Data Analysis
were also not used if the mean GRBAS (grade, roughness, Acoustic analysis. Acoustic analysis was conducted
breathiness, asthenicity, strain) scale score (Hirano, 1981)— with PRAAT (Boersma & Weenink, 2006). To exclude
rated by two independent experts (one speech therapist the voice variability of the onset and offset phase, only
and one phoniatrician) on the basis of three recorded the range from 0.5 s to 3.5 s after the voice onset was
phonations—was 1 or higher in any voice characteristic. analyzed.
Included sample. A total of 57 participants—28 women Jitter and shimmer measures can be subclassified
20–39 years of age (M = 28.8 years) and 29 men 20– into two main types: Absolute jitter and shimmer mea-
39 years of age (M = 28.1 years)—were included for sures such as “perturbation factor ” or “directional per-
acoustic voice analysis. These included 9 (nondysphonic) turbation factor” are based on the difference between
smokers and 12 non-native speakers. Each participant successive periods or amplitudes and are not normalized
provided 9 phonations, totaling 513 phonations for anal- to the speaker’s F0 and SPL, respectively. Absolute jitter
ysis. Of all 70 recruited participants, 12 participants with and shimmer measures have been shown to be affected
a mean GRBAS score of >1 in one voice characteristic and by mean F0 and SPL, respectively (Orlikoff & Baken,
1 participant unable to phonate for 5 s were excluded. 1990). In contrast, F0- and SPL-adjusted indexes are
calculated as a ratio of mean perturbation to mean F0 or
amplitude, respectively. Thus, they are normalized to
Procedures F0 and SPL (Baken & Orlikoff, 2000a, 2000b). Therefore,
Calibration. Conversion from uncalibrated voice sig- a F0-normalized jitter index, calculated as a percentage
nal amplitude (as measured by PRAAT; Boersma & of F0, was chosen. This parameter is called jitter (local)
Weenink, 2006) to calibrated SPL values was achieved by PRAAT. Analogously, an SPL-adjusted index measur-
using the comparison method (Winholtz & Titze, 1997). ing shimmer in dB, called shimmer (local, dB) by PRAAT,
Prior to voice recordings, calibrated speech weighted was used. Because a different individual SPL and F0
noise (Wagener, Kühnel, & Kollmeier, 1999) was recorded change was expected for “soft,” “medium,” and “loud”
with 10 cm distance to sound source at 50 dB, 65 dB, 85 dB, phonation between participants, and F0 normally rises
and 90 dB. The difference between known SPL from the with increasing voice intensity (Gramming, 1988), SPL
calibrated signal and the measured uncalibrated ampli- and F0 were also measured.
tude values was calculated and was later used to compute Main outcome measures. The primary outcome mea-
calibrated SPL of the voice recordings. sures were jitter (%) and shimmer (dB), with SPL and F0
Recording technique. Recordings were made accord- also measured as dependent variables. The most impor-
ing to European and American assessment guidelines tant independent variables for this study were phona-
(Dejonckere et al., 2001; Titze, 1995). Participants were tion level (soft/medium/loud) and gender (f /m), although
recorded in a soundproof room (ambient noise approx- subject (1–57) and token (1–3 per loudness level) were
imately 20 dB) using a head-mounted off-axis posi- also treated as independent variables.
tioned microphone (AKG Acoustics, C444) with 10-cm Statistical analysis. Mean values and 95% confidence
microphone–mouth distance and a portable DAT recorder intervals for SPL, F0, jitter, and shimmer in soft, medium,

1154 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 51 • 1152–1160 • October 2008
and loud phonation were calculated for women and men. From soft to medium phonation, there was little
Additionally, the SPL distribution in gender was graph- change in F0 in both genders. However, F0 rose signifi-
ically displayed. The following inferential analysis was cantly in men (+51 Hz) and women (+90 Hz) from medium
conducted for jitter and shimmer and for F0 separately. to loud phonation (see Figure 2, Table 2). As expected
First, since jitter, shimmer, and F0 showed an approxi- for normal voices, gender had a significant effect on F0,
mately exponential relationship with SPL in the graph- F(1, 450) = 1625.90, p < .01 (see Table 3).
ical display, a logarithmic transform was applied to each
before further statistical analysis. Thereafter, the ef- Shimmer
fects of four independent variables—phonation level (soft/
medium/loud), gender (f/m), subject (1–57), and token Phonation level effects. There were highly significant
(1–3 per loudness level)—were assessed with a four-way differences in shimmer among phonation levels (soft/
analysis of variance (ANOVA). To determine if effects due medium/loud), F(2, 450) = 1054.81, p < .01 (see Table 3).
to soft, medium, and loud phonation were different in Over the whole SPL range, shimmer increased signifi-
women and men, the interaction of phonation and gender cantly with decreasing SPL (see Table 2); however, at
was also assessed. SPLs below 80 dB (approximately the level of “comfort-
able” phonation), mean shimmer was considerably higher
in both genders (see Figure 3).
Results Gender effects. Men had significantly smaller mean
shimmer when asked to produce soft and medium pho-
SPL and F0 nations (see Table 2). The phonation level effects on shim-
Because the task was to produce soft, medium, and mer were significantly different for women and men,
loud phonations, the mean SPLs produced in response to F(2, 450) = 21.62, p < .01 (see Table 3). However, Figure 3,
these three instructions are given in Figure1 and Table 2. which illustrates actual SPL distribution and not pho-
Notably, there was an interaction between phonation nation levels, shows no obvious gender effect at medium
level (soft/medium/loud) and gender, F(2, 450) = 6.08, SPLs.
p < .01 (see Table 3). Soft and medium phonations were
significantly louder in men, whereas loud phonations Jitter
were more similar between women and men (see Figure 1,
Table 2). Phonation level effects. As for shimmer, the phonation
level had a highly significant effect on jitter, F(2, 450) =
6.404, p < .01 (see Table 3), which decreased with increas-
Figure 1. Mean SPL and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for soft, ing SPL (see Table 2). Considerably higher jitter was ob-
medium, and loud phonation in women and men. served below 75 dB in both genders (see Figure 4).
Gender effects. Men had significantly higher mean
jitter in soft phonation (see Table 2). But in medium and
loud phonation, jitter was similar between genders.

Discussion
This pragmatic study covers a wide SPL range in
uninfluenced normal voice function in a typical clinical
task and shows unequivocally that individual voice in-
tensity has a considerable impact on both jitter and shim-
mer. Moreover, these effects are different for men and
women. Though not reported here, similar results were
measured in other shimmer and jitter types (such as
“local shimmer”, “rap,” and “ddb”) by PRAAT.

Response of SPL and F0 to Soft,

Medium, and Loud Phonation
Because SPL depends on distance, all measurements
were made under standard conditions and were reported
after comparison to reference values at 10 cm. Under
these circumstances, mean SPL and F0 in “medium”

Brockmann et al.: Loudness and Gender Effects on Jitter and Shimmer 1155
 Table 2. Mean and 95% confidence intervals for four instrumental parameters taken from soft, medium, and loud phonations.

Soft phonation Medium phonation Loud phonation

Variable F M F M F M

63.8 68.8 72.5 79.2 96.8 98.8

SPL (dB) 62.7–64.9 67.7–69.8 71.4–73.6 78.1–80.2 95.7–97.9 97.8–99.9
217 125 211 127 301 178
F0 (Hz) 210–224 121–129 204–217 123–131 292–311 173–184
1.40 1.00 0.50 0.28 0.12 0.13
Shimmer (dB) 1.27–1.54 0.91–1.10 0.46–0.55 0.26 –0.31 0.11– 0.14 0.12–0.14
0.78 0.94 0.36 0.31 0.22 0.21
Jitter (%) 0.71–0.86 0.86 –1.04 0.32–0.39 0.28 –0.34 0.20– 0.24 0.19–0.23

Note. Data are shown separately for women (F) and men (M). In all cases, there were significant differences between soft, medium, and
loud phonations, with p values (between 10–85 and 10–214) so low as to give essentially no probability of the results being explained by
random variability. All p values have been rounded to three digits after the decimal point.

phonation were consistent with “comfortable” phonation

in young adults (Brown et al., 1996). The increase in F0
from medium to loud phonation in both genders, and the
Table 3. ANOVA: Effects of gender (f/m), phonation level higher SPL observed in men for soft and medium phona-
(soft/medium/ loud), token (1–3), participant (1–57), and the tion, agree with previous observations (Gramming, 1988).
Phonation × Gender interaction on SPL, F0, jitter, and shimmer.
Response of Shimmer and Jitter to Soft,
Factor Dep. variable df F p
Medium, and Loud Phonation
Gender (f/m)
Our jitter and shimmer measurements at medium
SPL 1 105.90 <.001
loudness (see Table 2) were in broad agreement with the
F0 1 1625.90 <.001
Jitter (%) 1 0.00 .947
Shimmer (dB) 1 52.94 <.001
Figure 2. SPL and fundamental frequency (F0) distribution in women
Phonation level (soft/medium/loud) and men over the complete range of phonatory levels.
SPL 2 1781.47 <.001
F0 2 307.77 <.001
Jitter % 2 438.47 <.001
Shimmer dB 2 1054.86 <.001
Token (1–3)
SPL 2 1.04 .354
F0 2 0.11 .892
Jitter % 2 0.52 .592
Shimmer dB 2 2.58 .077
Participant (1–57)
SPL 55 6.08 <.001
F0 55 10.17 <.001
Jitter % 55 5.29 <.001
Shimmer dB 55 6.85 <.001
Interaction: Phonation × Gender
SPL 2 9.39 <.001
F0 2 1.02 .36
Jitter % 2 6.40 .002
Shimmer dB 2 21.62 <.001

Note. p values have been rounded. ANOVA = analysis of variance;

F0 = fundamental frequency; Dep. = dependent.

1156 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 51 • 1152–1160 • October 2008
Figure 3. SPL and shimmer relationship. Shimmer increases intensely Figure 4. SPL and jitter relationship. Jitter increases in phonations
in phonations below 80 dB in both genders. below 75 dB in both genders.

data from other reports at comfortable loudness and Gender Effects on Jitter and Shimmer
pitch (see Table 1). However, we have shown that shim-
mer and jitter depend on phonation level to an extent Gender effects on jitter and shimmer are clearly
that has not previously been reported. The decrease in smaller than the extremely large effects due to phonation
jitter and shimmer with increasing SPL was also ob- level (see Figures 3 and 4). Ostensibly, the lower shim-
served in supplemented phonetograms of healthy adults mer in men in soft and medium phonation (see Table 3)
(Pabon, 1991; Pabon & Plomp, 1988), in healthy and agrees with findings “at comfortable loudness and pitch”
dysphonic adults at unspecified SPL (Dejonckere, 1998), (Sorensen & Horii, 1983; Jafari et al., 1993; see Table 1).
and in women at predefined SPL (Gelfer, 1995). The However, it is noteworthy that Figure 3 does not support
mean shimmer and jitter in “medium” and “ loud” male the idea that men have lower shimmer in “medium” SPLs.
phonation in this study were comparable to measure- Indeed, when using actual SPL (and not the phonation
ments in a defined SPL range at “moderate” and “loud” levels of soft, medium, and loud) as the predictive factor,
level (Orlikoff & Kahane, 1991). However, our results then the gender effect disappears at medium SPL ranges.
show a dramatic quasiexponential increase in shimmer In our pragmatic study, we investigated the perfor-
and jitter below 75–80 dB (see Figures 3 and 4) rather mance of women and men in a typical clinical voice as-
than the linear relationship as reported previously sessment task, when producing “medium” or “normal”
(Orlikoff & Kahane, 1991). The contradiction probably voice loudness. Although there is measurably less shim-
reflects the wide observed SPL range of 63.8–98.8 dB mer in men when phonating at medium loudness, our
in our work, as compared with 72.8–94.3 dB (converted data suggest that this is simply because men tend to
to 10 cm distance) reported by Orlikoff and Kahane phonate louder. As clearly shown in Figure 3, for men
(1991). and women phonating at the same SPL, there would be
Acoustic analysis at different voice SPL might also little or no difference at medium voice loudness, which
partially explain contradictory jitter and shimmer val- was also observed by other authors (Deem et al., 1989;
ues reported for women and men in previous studies. It Ludlow et al., 1987). This effect probably explains some
is noteworthy that our participants did not show differ- of the contradictory results reported previously, although
ences based on gender, as shown very clearly in Figure 3. their methods were not reported in enough detail to ap-
This was unexpected and opens up the perspective that praise this.
in the future, normative values should be established for Gender effects might be also associated to a F0 change
a range of SPLs. alone, especially in men (Orlikoff & Baken, 1990). Because

Brockmann et al.: Loudness and Gender Effects on Jitter and Shimmer 1157
F0 did not change much between soft and medium pho- such as laryngeal palsy. Therefore, whether voice per-
nation, the observed effects are most likely due to the ob- turbation analysis can usefully be applied in severely dis-
served SPL change. ordered voices is open to question. This criticism has also
been raised from a different angle, as severely hoarse
Explanation Model voices can be too aperiodic to provide meaningful jitter
and shimmer measurements (Titze, 1995). Furthermore,
Greater jitter and shimmer below 80 dB might re-
results may not be simply transferable to groups in which
flect a physiological laryngeal tension change in normal
modestly different jitter and shimmer can be presumed,
voices associated with low SPL. In lower intensities and
such as older adults (Wilkox & Horii, 1980) or mildly to
frequencies, a higher glottal open quotient, associated
moderately dysphonic patients (Schoentgen, 1982). These
with lower intrinsic vocal fold muscle tension and smaller
groups would have to be differentially examined in future
vocal fold vibration amplitudes, has previously been de-
investigations.
scribed (Hodge et al., 2001; Sulter, Schutte, & Miller,
1996). Especially low intrinsic vocal fold muscle tension
might result in greater mucosa cover variability, gener- Conclusion
ating higher voice perturbation in soft phonation. So This pragmatic study provides baseline data for the
jitter and shimmer might track subtle tension related effects of voice loudness and gender on acoustic voice
to voice changes. This would have a significant clinical parameters in healthy young adults. Both jitter and
value in diagnosing subtle voice disorders such as mus- shimmer increase dramatically as SPL decreases, es-
cle tension dysphonia, which are difficult to diagnose pecially between “medium” to “soft” voice loudness.
by other means including videolaryngostroboscopy Below 80 dB, small variations in SPL lead to large
(Schneider, Wendler, & Seidner, 2002). changes in jitter and shimmer. These low SPL intensi-
ties are likely associated with small intrinsic vocal fold
Clinical Implications tension and vibration amplitudes, potentially causing
Reliability and sensitivity. One key concern is that in more mucosa movement variability, and resulting in
both genders, shimmer and jitter increased dramatically higher perturbation.
when the participants phonated below 80 and 75 dB, re- At any given SPL, the levels of jitter and shimmer
spectively. When adults are asked to phonate at a “com- appeared comparable between men and women. How-
fortable level” as done in clinical assessments, they are ever, in a real clinical situation, when asked for “com-
likely to produce less than 75 dB (Brown et al., 1996). In fortable” voice loudness, women tend to respond with a
our study, women and men produced voice below 75 dB softer phonation and so may appear more pathologic.
and 80 dB, respectively, in “medium” phonation. So, in This effect was particularly evident in shimmer measure-
normal voice assessment, it is likely that healthy young ments. Therefore, normative thresholds are not simply
adults phonate at critically low SPL. Reported unsatis- applicable and transferable between genders.
factory reliability and sensitivity (Carding et al., 2004; SPL control potentially could be used to enhance the
Zyski et al., 1984) might be partially explained by the reliability of voice assessment—for example, by request-
fact that jitter and shimmer are higher and vary sub- ing phonations above 80 dB. However, it is unclear how
stantially more at this loudness level. Furthermore, jitter and shimmer respond to SPL control or how SPL
women are at risk of appearing more pathological be- affects perturbation in disordered voices or other age
cause they phonate more quietly in medium phonation. groups. These questions have to be addressed in further
This suggests that normative thresholds are not simply research to ensure jitter and shimmer measurement
applicable in practice and transferable between genders reliability.
without adequate SPL control.
Improving measurement accuracy. The effect of SPL
and gender on jitter and shimmer could be minimized by References
requesting phonations above 80 dB (as recorded at 10 cm). Askenfelt, A., & Hammarberg, B. (1986). Speech waveform
This equates to adult voice loudness when speaking to perturbation analysis: A perceptual acoustical comparison
a listener 9 m away (Healey, Jones, & Berky, 1997). An of seven measures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
SPL meter with visual feedback would easily facilitate 29, 50–64.
SPL control in voice assessments. However, future work Baken, R., & Orlikoff, R. F. (2000a). Amplitude perturba-
is required to investigate how voluntarily controlling tion (shimmer). In R. Baken & R. F. Orlikoff (Eds.), Clinical
measurements of speech and voice (pp. 130–137). Clifton
SPL affects jitter and shimmer measurements.
Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Although it can be achieved in functional dysphonia Baken, R., & Orlikoff, R. F. (2000b). Frequency perturba-
(Gramming, 1988) and polyps (Pabon & Plomp, 1988), pho- tion (jitter). In Clinical measurements of speech and voice
nation above 80 dB may be impossible in some pathologies (pp. 190–213). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.

1158 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 51 • 1152–1160 • October 2008
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2006). Praat (Version 4.4.16) Jafari, M., Till, J., Truesdell, L., & Law-Till, C. (1993).
[Voice analysis computer software]. Amsterdam, the Nether- Time-shift, trial and gender effects on vocal perturbation
lands: University of Amsterdam. Retrieved January 07, 2006, measurements. Journal of Voice, 7, 326–336.
from http://www.praat.org/.
Kay Elemetrics Corp. (1999). Multi-Dimensional Voice Pro-
Brown, W. J., Morris, R., & Murry, T. (1996). Comfortable gram (MDVP) Model 5105: Instruction manual. (Version 2.0)
effort level revisited. Journal of Voice, 10, 299–305. [Acoustic Analysis]. Lincoln Park, NJ: Kay Elemetrics
Carding, P. N., Steen, I. N., Webb, A., Mackenzie, K., Corporation.
Deary, I. J., & Wilson, J. A. (2004). The reliability and Ludlow, C., Bassich, C., Connor, N., Connor, N., Coulter,
sensitivity to change of acoustic measures of voice quality. D., & Lee, Y. (1987). The validity of using jitter and shim-
Clinical Otolaryngology, 29, 538–544. mer to detect laryngeal pathology. In T. Baer, C. Sasaki, &
Deem, J., Manning, W., Knack, J., & Matesich, J. (1989). K. Harris (Eds.), Laryngeal function in phonation and respi-
The automatic extraction of pitch perturbation using micro- ration: Vocal fold physiology series (pp. 492–508). Boston:
computers: Some methodological considerations. Journal College-Hill.
of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 689–697.
Mazzoni, D., Brubeck, M., Crook, J., Johnson, V., Meyer,
Dejonckere, P. (1998). Effect of louder voicing on acoustical M., Habermann, J., et al. (2005). Audacity (Version 1.2.4b)
measurements in dysphonic patients. Logopedics, Phonia- [Audio Editor and Recorder]. Boston, MA: Free Software
trics, Vocology, 23, 79–84. Foundation.
Dejonckere, P., Bradley, P., Clemente, P., Cornut, G., Orlikoff, R. F., & Baken, R. (1990). Consideration of the rela-
Crevier-Buchmann, L., Friedrich, G., et al. (2001). A tionship between the fundamental frequency of phonation
basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, and vocal Jitter. Folia Phoniatrica, 42, 31–40.
especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical)
treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Orlikoff, R. F., & Kahane, J. C. (1991). Influence of mean
European Archives of Otorhinolarygology, 258, 77–82. sound pressure level on jitter and shimmer measures. Jour-
nal of Voice, 5(2), 113–119.
Dejonckere, P., Remacle, M., Fresnel-Elbaz, E., Woisard,
V., Crevier-Buchmann, L., & Millet, B. (1996). Differen- Pabon, J. P. (1991). Objective acoustic voice-quality parame-
tiated perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: ters in the computer Phonetogram. Journal of Voice, 5(3),
Reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. 203–216.
Revue de laryngologie, d’otologie et de rhinologie, 117(3), Pabon, J. P., & Plomp, R. (1988). Automatic phonetogram
219–224. recording supplemented with acoustical voice-quality parame-
Eksteen, E., Rieger, J., Nesbitt, M., & Seikaly, H. (2003). ters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 710–722.
Comparison of voice characteristics following three different
Rovirosa, A., Martinez-Celdran, E., Ortega, A., Ascaso,
methods of treatment for laryngeal cancer. Journal of
C., Abellana, R., Velasco, M., et al. (2000). Acoustic anal-
Otolaryngology, 32(4), 250–253.
ysis after radiotherapy in T1 vocal cord carcinoma: A new
Ferrand, C. (1995). Effects of practice with and without approach to the analysis of voice quality. International Jour-
knowledge of results on jitter and shimmer levels in nor- nal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 47, 73–79.
mally speaking women. Journal of Voice, 9(4), 419–423.
Roy, N., Weinrich, B., Gray, S., Tanner, K., Toledo, S.,
Gelfer, M. P. (1995). Fundamental frequency, intensity, Dove, H., et al. (2002). Voice amplification versus vocal hy-
and vowel selection: Effects on measures of phonatory giene instruction for teachers with voice disorders: A treat-
stability. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, ment outcomes study. Journal of Speech Language &
1189–1198. Hearing Research, 45, 625–638.
Gramming, P. (1988). Relationship between changes in voice Schneider, B., Wendler, J., & Seidner, W. (2002). The rele-
pitch and loudness. Journal of Voice, 2, 118–126. vance of stroboscopy in functional dysphonias. Folia Pho-
Hanson, D. G., Jiang, J. J., Chen, J., & Pauloski, B. R. niatrica, 54, 44–54.
(1997). Acoustic measurement of change in voice quality
Schoentgen, J. (1982). Qualitative evaluation of the discrim-
with treatment for chronic posterior laryngitis. Annals of
inating performance of acoustic features in detecting laryn-
Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 106(4), 279–285.
geal pathology. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
Healey, E., Jones, R., & Berky, R. (1997). Effects of per- 13, 489–502.
ceived listeners on speakers’ vocal intensity. Journal of
Voice, 11(1), 67–73. Sorensen, D., & Horii, Y. (1983). Frequency and amplitude
perturbation in the voices of female speakers. Journal of
Hirano, M. (1981). Clinical examination of voice (Vol. 5). Communication Disorders, 16, 57–61.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sulter, A., Schutte, H., & Miller, D. (1996). Standardized
Hodge, F., Colton, R., & Kelley, R. (2001). Vocal intensity laryngeal videostroboscopic rating: Differences between un-
characteristics in normal and elderly speakers. Journal of trained and trained male and female subjects, and effects of
Voice, 15(4), 503–511. varying sound intensity, fundamental frequency, and age.
Horii, Y. (1980). Vocal shimmer in sustained phonation. Journal of Voice, 10(2), 175–189.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 202–209. Titze, I. R. (1995). Workshop on acoustic voice analysis:
Horii, Y. (1982). Jitter and shimmer differences among sus- Summary statement. In D. Wong (Ed.), Proceedings of the
tained vowel phonations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Workshop on Acoustic Voice Analysis, Denver, CO (February
Research, 25, 12–14. 1994). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

Brockmann et al.: Loudness and Gender Effects on Jitter and Shimmer 1159
Wagener, F., Kühnel, V., & Kollmeier, B. (1999). Entwick-
Received November 13, 2006
lung und Evaluation eines Satztestes in deutscher Sprache.
I: Design des Oldenburger Satztestes (German) [Develop- Revision received June 5, 2007
ment and evaluation of a sentence-based hearing test in Accepted November 29, 2007
German language. I: Design of the Oldenburger Satztest].
Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38, 4–15. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/06-0208)

Wilkox, K., & Horii, Y. (1980). Age and changes in vocal jitter. Contact author: Meike Brockmann, Head of Speech Pathology
Journal of Gerontology, 35(2), 194–198. Section, Clinic of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck
Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 24,
Winholtz, W., & Titze, I. (1997). Conversion of a head-
8091 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected].
mounted microphone signal into calibrated SPL units.
Journal of Voice, 11(4), 417–421. Claudio Storck is now with the Department of Phoniatrics,
Zyski, B., Bull, G., McDonald, W., & Johns, M. (1984). Clinic of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery,
Perturbation analysis of normal and pathological larynges. University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Folia Phoniatrica, 36, 190–198.

1160 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 51 • 1152–1160 • October 2008