INTRODUCTION: Smart devices are widely available and capable of quickly recording and uploading speech segments for health-related analysis. The switch from laboratory recordings with professional-grade microphone set ups to remote, smart device-based recordings offers immense potential for the scalability of voice assessment. Yet, a growing body of literature points to a wide heterogeneity among acoustic metrics for their robustness to variation in recording devices. The addition of consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones has been proposed as a possible solution. The aim of our study is to assess if the addition of consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones increases the acoustic measurement agreement between ultra-portable devices and a reference microphone. METHODS Speech was simultaneously recorded by a reference high-quality microphone commonly used in research, and by two different configurations with plug-and-play microphones. Twelve speech-acoustic features were calculated using recordings from each microphone to determine the agreement intervals in measurements between microphones. Agreement intervals were then compared to expected deviations in speech in various neurological conditions. Each microphone's response to speech and to silence were characterized through acoustic analysis to explore possible reasons for differences in acoustic measurements between microphones. Lastly, the statistical differentiation of two groups, neurotypical and people with Multiple Sclerosis, using metrics from each tested microphone was compared to that of the reference microphone. RESULTS The two consumer-grade plug-and-play microphones favored high frequencies (mean centre of gravity difference equal or more than 175.3Hz) and recorded more noise (mean difference in signal-to-noise equal or less than -4.2dB) when compared to the reference microphone. Between consumer-grade microphones, differences in relative noise were closely related to distance between the microphone and the speaker's mouth. Agreement intervals between the reference and consumer-grade microphones remained under disease-expected deviations only for fundamental frequency (f0, agreement interval equal or less than 0.06Hz), f0 instability (f0 CoV, agreement interval equal or less than 0.05%) and for tracking of second formant movement (agreement interval equal or less than 1.4Hz/millisecond). Agreement between microphones was poor for other metrics, particularly for fine timing metrics (mean pause length and pause length variability for various tasks). The statistical difference between the two groups of speakers was smaller with the plug-and-play than with the reference microphone. CONCLUSION Measurement of f0 and F2 slope were robust to variation in recording equipment while other acoustic metrics were not. Thus, the tested plug-and-play microphones should not be used interchangeably with professional-grade microphones for speech analysis. Plug-and-play microphones may assist in equipment standardization within speech studies, including remote or self-recording, possibly with small loss in accuracy and statistical power as observed in the current study.

APV is Chief Science Officer of Redenlab Inc. GN is Medical Officer of Redenlab Inc.

Anneke van der Walt receives grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia. Adam Vogel receives grant and fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Australian Research Council. Scott Kolbe receives grant income from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was reviewed and approved by the Melbourne Health Ethics Committee (approval number 2015.069).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All available data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript