| Literature DB >> 23483585 |
Amaia Méndez Zorrilla1, Begoña García Zapirain, Agustín Pérez Izquierdo.
Abstract
The development of computer software and other technologies greatly facilitates the evaluation of pathological voice patients. This fact allows to reduce exploration time, improves the reproducibility of results and creates the possibility of test protocol standardization needed for the intercommunication between the different voice specialists. The proposed application encompasses the most important aspects which should be taken into account regarding dysphonic patients. It is a multidimensional scope which involves subjective questionnaires and perceptual, aerodynamic, acoustic and stroboscopic evaluations. In this system, the authors have designed and created simple tools for recording and automatic acoustic analysis for the acquisition and edition of stroboscopic images. The purpose is to work with all necessary tools running on a single application, without having to export and import data from other computer programs. Therefore, the objective is to synthetize the basic voice and the exploration of the vocal folds, simplifying it through the design of a program which helps us to analyze step-by-step each aspect of the vocal pathology. The evaluation of the tool has been performed by the otolaryngologists through periodical (medical) appointments on 25 patients for one year a year, and the results are promising either for the professionals as well as for the patients which receive a detailed report with the objective information concerning the features of their voice and vocal cords.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnosis; Objective parameters; Otolaryngologist; Software application; Vocal pathologies
Year: 2012 PMID: 23483585 PMCID: PMC3586405 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-1-64
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Figure 1Video analysis screen.
Figure 2Subjective VLG and Perceptual analysis.
Figure 3Results Screen.
Vocal use results
| Level I | Level II | Level III | Level IV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive or special use | Professional voice use | Non-vocal Professional | Workers without vocal use |
| 4 cases | 10 cases | 8 cases | 3 cases |
Subjective assessment results
| Question 1 | Good | Acceptable | Medium | Bad | Very Bad | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective voice quality | - | 7 cases | 12 cases | 4 cases | 1 case | N=25 |
| Question 2 | ||||||
| Socio-laboral subjective repercusion | 4 cases | 13 cases | 5 cases | 2 cases | 1 cases | N=25 |
VHI results
| Classification of VHI in partial domains | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (0–20) | Moderate (21–30) | Severe (31–40) | ||
| Functional | 4 cases | 20 cases | 1 cases | |
| Physical | 8 cases | 9 cases | 8 cases | |
| Emotional | 25 cases | 8 cases | 2 cases | |
| Global VHI | 7 cases | 12 cases | 6 cases | - |
Morpho-functional study results
| Rating 0-10 | Glottal closure | Mucosal wave | Regularity | Symmetry |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nodules | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Vocal polyp | 8 | 7 | 7 | 9 |
| Reinke's edema | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Sulcus vocalis | 8 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| No injury (functional) | 5 | 3 | 6 | 6 |
Figure 4VLG objective parameters graphic results.
Perceptual analysis results
| Patients rated according to the perceptual analysis of dysphonia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating from 0 to 10, from low to severe grade | |||||
| 0-1-2 points | 3-4 points | 5-6 points | 7-8 points | 9-10 points | |
| 6 cases | 12 cases | 4 cases | 3 cases | - | |
| 5 “ | 14 “ | 3 “ | 3 “ | - | |
| 3 “ | 11 “ | 5 “ | 3 “ | 3 cases | |
| 4 “ | 10 “ | 6 “ | 4 “ | 1 “ | |
| 2 “ | 8 “ | 7 “ | 7 “ | 1 “ | |
Acoustic analysis results
| Acoustic parameter values of the 25 patients | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Mean | Standard Deviation | Confidence Intervals (95%) | Max/Min Values |
| Fo mean | 178,12 | 31,33 | 165,45 a 204,63 | 285,41/110,51 |
| Fo Male | 127,56 | 24.12 | ||
| Fo Female | 232,87 | 29,74 | ||
| Jitter | 0,35 | 0,95 | 0,20 a 0,29 | 0,45/0,12 |
| Shimmer | 4,10 | 2,51 | 3,42 a 5,25 | 10,10/1,30 |
| HNR | 23,12 | 3,30 | 17,80 a 23,95 | 27,58/12,63 |
Figure 5Example of vocal profile of a pathological patient.
Figure 6Audiovisual Gallery Screen.
Survey made to otolaryngologists
| Item | Average Marks |
|---|---|
| The use of the AnalisisVOX software is easy | 3,53 |
| Friendly interface | 3,14 |
| The acoustic parameters analyzed are appropriate | 3,97 |
| The graphic representation of the acoustic parameters is appropriate | 4,18 |
| The analyzed parameters of the vocal fold images are appropriate | 3,82 |
| The graphic representation of the parameters obtained automatically through the images is appropriate | 4,5 |
| Quality of the generated reports | 4,47 |
Comparative features of ANALISISVOX
| Features of the current applications | Features of the ANALISISVOX application |
|---|---|
| Lead to the specialist doctor to carry out the exploration in parts, gathering the information through different methods, generating files and documents of different programs which occupy usable memory of the computer, and moreover slowing down the process of the study. | It can be accessed to the files of any patient, without having to seek manually on the hard disk any kind of information |
| Too technical when showing the calculated information. | Shows the values obtained in a graphic and easy way to digest. |