Literature DB >> 14727123

Objective evaluation of the quality of substitution voices.

Mieke Moerman1, Glenn Pieters, Jean-Pierre Martens, Marie-Jeanne Van der Borgt, Phillippe Dejonckere.   

Abstract

This paper describes our first attempts to develop a method for the objective assessment of quality in substitution voices. The objective analysis deals with acoustic parameters characterising short voice and speech samples like a sequence of isolated vowels, a sequence of VCV and CVCVCV syllables, a short sentence, etc. A database of 113 registrations from 68 patients (53 total laryngectomy patients with tracheo-esophageal speech, 14 total laryngectomy patients with esophageal speech and 5 patients with partial frontolateral laryngectomy) and 6 registrations from healthy control persons was collected. Each registration consisted of seven speech utterances and was subjected to an acoustic analysis as well as to a perceptual evaluation, the latter involving eight parameters like "overall impression", "tonicity", etc. Since the goal of our work is to find out the best acoustical measurement for supporting perception and making it precise, it seemed logical to strive for a perceptually based acoustic analysis. We therefore performed the analysis by means of a peripheral auditory model with a built-in fundamental frequency (pitch) extractor. From the frame-level outputs (a frame is 10 ms) of the analyser, global objective parameters, such as (1) the percentage of voiced frames, (2) the average voicing evidence, (3) the voicing length distribution and (4) the fundamental frequency jitter, were computed for the different speech utterances. So as to reduce the parameter variability arising from the nature of the speech utterances (e.g., the presence of pauses in the signal, errors caused by the pitch extractor, etc.), the objective parameters were computed using non-standard averaging schemes involving energy weighting and frame selection. A statistical analysis of the objective parameters confirms that the quality of tracheo-esophageal speech is superior to that of esophageal speech, but inferior to that of normal speech and speech with the preservation of one vocal fold. Correlations between the objective parameters and the perceptual parameters are moderate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14727123     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-003-0681-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  9 in total

1.  A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS).

Authors:  P H Dejonckere; P Bradley; P Clemente; G Cornut; L Crevier-Buchman; G Friedrich; P Van De Heyning; M Remacle; V Woisard
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Pitch and voiced/unvoiced determination with an auditory model.

Authors:  L M Van Immerseel; J P Martens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spectrographic differences between tracheal-esophageal and esophageal voice.

Authors:  G Bertino; A Bellomo; C Miani; F Ferrero; A Staffieri
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr Logop       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 0.849

4.  [Contribution and limits of acoustic analysis of the voice and alaryngeal speech with a computerized system].

Authors:  L Crevier-Buchman; O Laccourreye; J F Papon; M C Monfrais-Pfauwadel; D Brasnu
Journal:  Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac       Date:  1996

5.  The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach.

Authors:  F L Wuyts; M S De Bodt; G Molenberghs; M Remacle; L Heylen; B Millet; K Van Lierde; J Raes; P H Van de Heyning
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 6.  Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.

Authors:  J Kreiman; B R Gerratt; G B Kempster; A Erman; G S Berke
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1993-02

7.  Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal versus oesophageal speech.

Authors:  F Debruyne; P Delaere; J Wouters; P Uwents
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 1.469

8.  Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice.

Authors:  C J van As; F J Hilgers; I M Verdonck-de Leeuw; F Koopmans-van Beinum
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.009

9.  Acoustic differentiation of laryngeal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech.

Authors:  J Robbins
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1984-12
  9 in total
  10 in total

Review 1.  Functional outcomes after supracricoid laryngectomy: what do we not know and what do we need to know?

Authors:  Antonio Schindler; Nicole Pizzorni; Francesco Mozzanica; Marco Fantini; Daniela Ginocchio; Andy Bertolin; Erika Crosetti; Giovanni Succo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  The INFVo perceptual rating scale for substitution voicing: development and reliability.

Authors:  Mieke Moerman; Jean-Pierre Martens; Lise Crevier-Buchman; Else de Haan; Stephanie Grand; Christophe Tessier; Virginie Woisard; Philippe Dejonckere
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2006-01-11       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  A pilot study about speech changes after partial Tucker's laryngectomy: the reduction of regressive voicing assimilation.

Authors:  C Galant; A Lagier; C Vercasson; L Santini; P Dessi; A Giovanni; N Fakhry
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Voicing quantification is more relevant than period perturbation in substitution voices: an advanced acoustical study.

Authors:  P H Dejonckere; M B J Moerman; J P Martens; J Schoentgen; C Manfredi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Tridimensional assessment of adductor spasmodic dysphonia pre- and post-treatment with Botulinum toxin.

Authors:  P H Dejonckere; K J Neumann; M B J Moerman; J P Martens; A Giordano; C Manfredi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-12-31       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Automatic evaluation of prosodic features of tracheoesophageal substitute voice.

Authors:  Tino Haderlein; Elmar Nöth; Hikmet Toy; Anton Batliner; Maria Schuster; Ulrich Eysholdt; Joachim Hornegger; Frank Rosanowski
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  [Automated postlaryngectomy telephone test].

Authors:  T Haderlein; K Riedhammer; A Maier; E Nöth; U Eysholdt; F Rosanowski
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.284

8.  Reliability of the Italian INFVo scale and correlations with objective measures and VHI scores.

Authors:  A Schindler; D Ginocchio; M Atac; P Maruzzi; S Madaschi; F Ottaviani; F Mozzanica
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.124

Review 9.  Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Klaske E van Sluis; Lisette van der Molen; Rob J J H van Son; Frans J M Hilgers; Patrick A Bhairosing; Michiel W M van den Brekel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Videolaryngostroboscopy and voice evaluation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Mario Augusto Ferrari de Castro; Rogério Aparecido Dedivitis; Elio Gilberto Pfuetzenreiter Júnior; Ana Paula Brandão Barros; Débora dos Santos Queija
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.