## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Men**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Women**} \\ \hline  & & **Young** & **Elderly** & **Young** & **Elderly** \\ \hline Fundamental & Arithmetic mean & 121.64 & 142.02 & 216.93 & 201.06 \\ frequency (Hz) & 95\% CI for the mean & 112.91–130.09 & 133.73–150.31 & 207.19–226.02 & 191.88–210.40 \\  & SD & 4.55 & 4.28 & 4.85 & 4.76 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.002 * & & 0.038 * & \\ \hline Jitter local (\%) & Arithmetic median & 0.36 & 0.51 & 0.32 & 0.44 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 0.28–0.40 & 0.41–0.75 & 0.30–0.41 & 0.34–0.56 \\  & SD & 0.04 & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.05 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.002 * & & 0.028 * & \\ \hline Jitter local abs (us) & Arithmetic median & 29.60 & 39.61 & 15.80 & 22.10 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 24.61–35.72 & 28.77–56.78 & 14.06–20.16 & 16.26–28.58 \\  & SD & 2.95 & 8.20 & 1.36 & 3.17 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.04 * & & 0.017 * & \\ \hline Jitter rap (\%) & Arithmetic median & 0.16 & 0.27 & 0.18 & 0.22 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 0.12–0.23 & 0.19–0.31 & 0.17–0.23 & 0.17–0.28 \\  & SD & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.02 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.01 * & & 0.279 & \\ \hline Jitter propq5 (\%) & Arithmetic median & 0.20 & 0.30 & 0.19 & 0.24 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 0.16–0.24 & 0.21–0.42 & 0.16–0.24 & 0.17–0.29 \\  & SD & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.02 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.008 * & & 0.124 & \\ \hline [PERSON] local (\%) & Arithmetic median & 2.69 & 4.91 & 2.69 & 2.65 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 2.13–2.98 & 3.23–6.96 & 2.39–3.26 & 2.09–3.00 \\  & SD & 0.24 & 1.03 & 0.25 & 0.23 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.002 * & & 0.969 & \\ \hline Shimmer local & Arithmetic median & 0.23 & 0.43 & 0.23 & 0.25 \\ (dB) & 95\% CI for the median & 0.18–0.27 & 0.28–0.63 & 0.20–0.28 & 0.18–0.28 \\  & SD & 0.02 & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.02 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.001 * & & 0.617 & \\ \hline Shimmer apq3 (\%) & Arithmetic median & 1.29 & 2.64 & 1.42 & 1.32 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 1.00–1.57 & 1.43–3.71 & 1.28–1.72 & 1.06–1.48 \\  & SD & 0.16 & 0.60 & 0.11 & 0.12 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.016 * & & 0.596 & \\ \hline Shimmer apq5 (\%) & Arithmetic median & 1.48 & 3.02 & 1.63 & 1.56 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 1.29–1.77 & 2.07–4.03 & 1.50–2.05 & 1.34–1.74 \\  & SD & 0.13 & 0.58 & 0.15 & 0.09 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.001 * & & 0.961 & \\ \hline Mean N/H & Arithmetic median & 0.008 & 0.018 & 0.005 & 0.01 \\  & 95\% CI for the median & 0.006–0.0111 & 0.008–0.041 & 0.004–0.007 & 0.006–0.011 \\  & SD & 0.001 & 0.009 & 0.001 & 0.001 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.008 * & & 0.106 & \\ \hline Mean H/N (dB) & Arithmetic mean & 22.80 & 19.50 & 23.65 & 23.26 \\  & 95\% CI for the mean & 21.73–23.77 & 17.68–21.19 & 22.49–24.79 & 22.05–24.39 \\  & SD & 0.51 & 0.88 & 0.58 & 0.59 \\  & \(p\) value & 0.002 * & & 0.102 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: * \(p\) < 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Means, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the mean and median, and standard deviations (SDs) for all parameters analyzed with Praat. Table 2 shows the results of the [PERSON]'s U-test, which was applied to all parameters except for \"SNR and fundamental frequency (F0)\", which followed a normal distribution (analysis of variance) in TF32. Acoustic parameters were analyzed to compare the voices of male and female young people and male and female seniors. The following parameters were statistically significant: fundamental frequency (F0, \(p\) = 0.004), ppd (\(p\) = 0.011), jitter (\(p\) = 0.001), shimmer (\(p\) = 0.001), signal to noise ratio (SNR; \(p\) = 0.001), Trk (\(p\) = 0.044), and Err (\(p\) = 0.000) in men; and fundamental frequency (F0, \(p\) = 0.008), ppd (\(p\) = 0.048), jitter (\(p\) = 0.018), Trk (\(p\) = 0.000), and Err (\(p\) = 0.004) in women. The similarity in the acoustic parameters of the two programs was evident in parameters such as shimmer (%) and SNR (dB) in female voice samples, as these did not statistically differ.