Literature DB >> 19883993

Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.

Youri Maryn1, Paul Corthals, Paul Van Cauwenberge, Nelson Roy, Marc De Bodt.   

Abstract

To improve ecological validity, perceptual and instrumental assessment of disordered voice, including overall voice quality, should ideally sample both sustained vowels and continuous speech. This investigation assessed the utility of combining both voice contexts for the purpose of auditory-perceptual ratings as well as acoustic measurement of overall voice quality. Sustained vowel and continuous speech samples from 251 subjects with (n=229) or without (n=22) various voice disorders were concatenated and perceptually rated on overall voice quality by five experienced voice clinicians. After removing the nonvoiced segments within the continuous speech samples, the concatenated samples were analyzed using 13 acoustic measures based on fundamental frequency perturbation, amplitude perturbation, spectral and cepstral analyses. Stepwise multiple regression analysis yielded a six-variable acoustic model for the multiparametric measurement of overall voice quality of the concatenated samples (with a cepstral measure as the main contributor to the prediction of overall voice quality). The correlation of this model with mean ratings of overall voice quality resulted in r(s)=0.78. A cross-validation approach involving the iterated internal cross-correlations with 30 subgroups of 100, 50, and 10 samples confirmed a comparable degree of association. Furthermore, the ability of the model to distinguish voice-disordered from vocally normal participants was assessed using estimates of diagnostic precision including receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, sensitivity, and specificity, as well as likelihood ratios (LRs), which adjust for base-rate differences between the groups. Depending on the cutoff criteria employed, the analyses revealed an impressive area under ROC=0.895 as well as respectable sensitivity, specificity, and LR. The results support the diagnostic utility of combining voice samples from both continuous speech and sustained vowels in acoustic and perceptual analysis of disordered voice. The findings are discussed in relation to the extant literature and the need for further refinement of the acoustic algorithm. 2010 The Voice Foundation. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19883993     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Voice        ISSN: 0892-1997            Impact factor:   2.009


  34 in total

1.  High-speed videoendoscopic analysis of relationships between cepstral-based acoustic measures and voice production mechanisms in patients undergoing phonomicrosurgery.

Authors:  Daryush D Mehta; Steven M Zeitels; James A Burns; Aaron D Friedman; Dimitar D Deliyski; Robert E Hillman
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.547

2.  Effects of age on the amplitude, frequency and perceived quality of voice.

Authors:  Catherine L Lortie; Mélanie Thibeault; Matthieu J Guitton; Pascale Tremblay
Journal:  Age (Dordr)       Date:  2015-11-14

3.  Effects of Arytenoid Adduction Suture Position on Voice Production and Quality.

Authors:  Pranati Pillutla; Zhaoyan Zhang; Dinesh K Chhetri
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  The value of the acoustic voice quality index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages.

Authors:  Youri Maryn; Marc De Bodt; Ben Barsties; Nelson Roy
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-10-26       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Test-Retest Reliability of Relative Fundamental Frequency and Conventional Acoustic, Aerodynamic, and Perceptual Measures in Individuals With Healthy Voices.

Authors:  Yeonggwang Park; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Effects of added absorption on the vocal exertions of talkers in a reverberant room.

Authors:  Michael K Rollins; Timothy W Leishman; Jennifer K Whiting; Eric J Hunter; Dennis L Eggett
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Exploring the feasibility of the combination of acoustic voice quality index and glottal function index for voice pathology screening.

Authors:  Nora Ulozaite-Staniene; Tadas Petrauskas; Viktoras Šaferis; Virgilijus Uloza
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  [Test-retest variability and internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index].

Authors:  B Barsties; Y Maryn
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Comparing Measures of Voice Quality From Sustained Phonation and Continuous Speech.

Authors:  Bruce R Gerratt; Jody Kreiman; Marc Garellek
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  [Effects of different tasks on determination of the speaking fundamental frequency].

Authors:  B Barsties
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.