The harmonic-to-noise ratio applied to dog barks

Dog barks are typically a mixture of regular components and irregular (noisy) components. The regular part of the signal is given by a series of harmonics and is most probably due to regular vibrations of the vocal folds, whereas noise refers to any nonharmonic (irregular) energy in the spectrum of the bark signal. The noise components might be due to chaotic vibrations of the vocal-fold tissue or due to turbulence of the air. The ratio of harmonic to nonharmonic energy in dog barks is quantified by applying the harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR). Barks of a single dog breed were recorded in the same behavioral context. Two groups of dogs were considered: a group of ten healthy dogs (the normal sample), and a group of ten unhealthy dogs, i.e., dogs treated in a veterinary clinic (the clinic sample). Although the unhealthy dogs had no voice disease, differences in emotion or pain or impacts of surgery might have influenced their barks. The barks of the dogs were recorded for a period of 6 months. The HNR computation is based on the Fourier spectrum of a 50-ms section from the middle of the bark. A 10-point moving average curve of the spectrum on a logarithmic scale is considered as estimator of the noise level in the bark, and the maximum difference of the original spectrum and the moving average is defined as the HNR measure. It is shown that a reasonable ranking of the voices is achievable based on the measurement of the HNR. The HNR-based classification is found to be consistent with perceptual evaluation of the barks. In addition, a multiparametric approach confirms the classification based on the HNR. Hence, it may be concluded that the HNR might be useful as a novel parameter in bioacoustics for quantifying the noise within a signal.

[1]  E. Morton On the Occurrence and Significance of Motivation-Structural Rules in Some Bird and Mammal Sounds , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[2]  P. Murphy,et al.  Perturbation-free measurement of the harmonics-to-noise ratio in voice signals using pitch synchronous harmonic analysis. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  I R Titze,et al.  Unification of perturbation measures in speech signals. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  W Seidner,et al.  Nonlinear phenomena in the natural howling of a dog-wolf mix. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  W J Gould,et al.  Computer analysis of hoarseness. , 1980, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[6]  D Michaelis,et al.  Selection and combination of acoustic features for the description of pathologic voices. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  H. Kasuya,et al.  Normalized noise energy as an acoustic measure to evaluate pathologic voice. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Lars Schrader,et al.  COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYSIS OF ACOUSTIC PARAMETERS IN ANIMAL VOCALISATIONS: A MULTI-PARAMETRIC APPROACH , 1997 .

[9]  R. Seyfarth,et al.  The acoustic features of vervet monkey grunts. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  I. Titze,et al.  Electron microscopy of hyperphonated canine vocal cords , 1987 .

[11]  T. Baer,et al.  Harmonics-to-noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  I. Titze,et al.  Histologic Investigation of Hyperphonated Canine Vocal Cords , 1988, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[13]  T. Riede,et al.  THE VOCAL CHANGE OF A KITTEN WITH CRANIOCEREBELLAR TRAUMA—A CASE STUDY , 1999 .

[14]  K. Kitajima,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of the noise level in the pathologic voice. , 1981, Folia phoniatrica.

[15]  H. Herzel,et al.  SUBHARMONICS, BIPHONATION, AND DETERMINISTIC CHAOS IN MAMMAL VOCALIZATION , 1998 .

[16]  A. A. Romanovsky,et al.  Peripheral Neural Inputs , 1997 .

[17]  R H Bernacki,et al.  The acoustic features of vervet monkey alarm calls. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.