Literature DB >> 15981017

Perceptual evaluation of substitution voices: development and evaluation of the (I)INFVo rating scale.

M B J Moerman1, J P Martens, M J Van der Borgt, M Peleman, M Gillis, P H Dejonckere.   

Abstract

Substitution voicing cannot be evaluated accurately by the GRBAS perceptual rating scale, and there is a need for a valuable alternative. Therefore, we developed and tried out a perceptual rating scale, consisting of five new parameters: impression, intelligibility, noise, fluency and voicing, each to be scored between 0 (very bad score) to 10 (very good score for a substitution voice). In analogy to the GRBAS scale, they are then converted to deviance scores ranging from 0 (similar to good substitution voicing) to 3 (very deviant from good substitution voicing). Inter-individual agreement measured in a set of 24 semi-professional jury members seemed to be moderate for all parameters. Mean figures of 0.52, 0.51, 0.46, 0.53 and 0.46 are obtained for the parameters impression, intelligibility, noise, fluency and voicing, respectively. Because a high correlation exists between the first two parameters (0.917) and relying on the correlation figures between the two "I"s and the other parameters (correlation values for "impression" vary from 0.79-0.86; values for "intelligibility" range from 0.74-0.83), we suggest to discard the parameter impression, which turns the actual IINFVo scale into INFVo. The proposed (I)INFVo perceptual rating scale seems promising for the assessment of substitution voicing. Eventual improvements and practical proposals are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15981017     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-005-0960-z

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


  13 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.  Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of voice and speech quality: a study of patients with laryngeal cancer treated with laryngectomy vs irradiation.

Authors:  C Finizia; H Dotevall; E Lundström; J Lindström
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1999-02

3.  Intelligibility and perceptual ratings after treatment for laryngeal cancer: laryngectomy versus radiotherapy.

Authors:  C Finizia; J Lindström; H Dotevall
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Differentiated perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements.

Authors:  P H Dejonckere; M Remacle; E Fresnel-Elbaz; V Woisard; L Crevier-Buchman; B Millet
Journal:  Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord)       Date:  1996

5.  Alaryngeal speech intelligibility and the older listener.

Authors:  J G Clark
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1985-02

6.  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

7.  A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production.

Authors:  J Robbins; H B Fisher; E C Blom; M I Singer
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1984-05

8.  Tracheoesophageal speech: vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy.

Authors:  M I Singer
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  Listener ratings of the intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech in noise.

Authors:  D McColl; D Fucci; L Petrosino; D E Martin; P McCaffrey
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.288

10.  Comparison of voice characteristics following three different methods of treatment for laryngeal cancer.

Authors:  Eddie C Eksteen; Jana Rieger; Margaret Nesbitt; Hadi Seikaly
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-08
View more
  9 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.  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

3.  Acoustic analysis of voice in patients treated by reconstructive subtotal laryngectomy. Evaluation and critical review.

Authors:  V Di Nicola; M L Fiorella; D A Spinelli; R Fiorella
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.124

4.  Anterior Sensorimotor Subthalamic Nucleus Stimulation Is Associated With Improved Voice Function.

Authors:  Ahmed Jorge; Christina Dastolfo-Hromack; Witold J Lipski; Ian H Kratter; Libby J Smith; Jackie L Gartner-Schmidt; R Mark Richardson
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  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

6.  Voice estimation in patients after reconstructive subtotal laryngectomy.

Authors:  Bożena Wiskirska-Woźnica; Małgorzata Leszczyńska; Hanna Czerniejewska; Joanna Jackowska; Szyfter Witold
Journal:  Head Neck Oncol       Date:  2011-10-26

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  Voice quality after transoral CO2 laser microsurgery (TOLMS): systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Andrea Colizza; Massimo Ralli; Chiara D'Elia; Antonio Greco; Marco de Vincentiis
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 3.236

9.  Spasmodic dysphonia, perceptual and acoustic analysis: presenting new diagnostic tools.

Authors:  Denise Irene Siemons-Lühring; Mieke Moerman; Jean-Pierre Martens; Dirk Deuster; Frank Müller; Philippe Dejonckere
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.503

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.