Literature DB >> 28169094

Predicting Voice Disorder Status From Smoothed Measures of Cepstral Peak Prominence Using Praat and Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV).

Cara Sauder1, Michelle Bretl2, Tanya Eadie2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to (1) determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of a single acoustic measure, smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS), to predict voice disorder status from connected speech samples using two software systems: Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV) and Praat; and (2) to determine the relationship between measures of CPPS generated from these programs. STUDY
DESIGN: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Measures of CPPS were obtained from connected speech recordings of 100 subjects with voice disorders and 70 nondysphonic subjects without vocal complaints using commercially available ADSV and freely downloadable Praat software programs. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of CPPS measures. Relationships between CPPS measures from the programs were determined.
RESULTS: Results showed acceptable overall accuracy rates (75% accuracy, ADSV; 82% accuracy, Praat) and area under the ROC curves (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.81, ADSV; AUC = 0.91, Praat) for predicting voice disorder status, with slight differences in sensitivity and specificity. CPPS measures derived from Praat were uniquely predictive of disorder status above and beyond CPPS measures from ADSV (χ2(1) = 40.71, P < 0.001). CPPS measures from both programs were significantly and highly correlated (r = 0.88, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A single acoustic measure of CPPS was highly predictive of voice disorder status using either program. Clinicians may consider using CPPS to complement clinical voice evaluation and screening protocols.
Copyright © 2017 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acoustic measures; Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice; Dysphonia; Praat; Smoothed cepstral peak prominence

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28169094     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.01.006

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


  10 in total

1.  Reliability and Accuracy of Expert Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice via Telepractice Platforms.

Authors:  Kimberly L Dahl; Hasini R Weerathunge; Daniel P Buckley; Anton S Dolling; Manuel Díaz-Cádiz; Lauren F Tracy; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Clinical Cutoff Scores for Acoustic Indices of Vocal Hyperfunction That Combine Relative Fundamental Frequency and Cepstral Peak Prominence.

Authors:  Mara R Kapsner-Smith; Manuel E Díaz-Cádiz; Jennifer M Vojtech; Daniel P Buckley; Daryush D Mehta; Robert E Hillman; Lauren F Tracy; J Pieter Noordzij; Tanya L Eadie; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 2.674

3.  Cepstral analysis in patients with a vocal fold motility impairment: advantages of the cepstrum over time-based acoustic analysis.

Authors:  Beatriz Delgado-Vargas; Leticia Acle-Cervera; Lorena Sánz-López; Mireya Bonet-Loscertales; Narcisa Pérez-Naranjo; Patricia Fuentes-Navajo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  An exploratory model of speech intelligibility for healthy aging based on phonatory and articulatory measures.

Authors:  Mili Kuruvilla-Dugdale; Maria Dietrich; Jacob D McKinley; Chelsea Deroche
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 2.288

5.  Effects of Vocal Intensity and Fundamental Frequency on Cepstral Peak Prominence in Patients with Voice Disorders and Vocally Healthy Controls.

Authors:  Meike Brockmann-Bauser; Jarrad H Van Stan; Marilia Carvalho Sampaio; Joerg E Bohlender; Robert E Hillman; Daryush D Mehta
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.009

6.  Accuracy of Acoustic Measures of Voice via Telepractice Videoconferencing Platforms.

Authors:  Hasini R Weerathunge; Roxanne K Segina; Lauren Tracy; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  An Assessment of Different Praat Versions for Acoustic Measures Analyzed Automatically by VoiceEvalU8 and Manually by Two Raters.

Authors:  Elizabeth U Grillo; Jeremy Wolfberg
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2020-12-28       Impact factor: 2.300

8.  Hey Siri: How Effective are Common Voice Recognition Systems at Recognizing Dysphonic Voices?

Authors:  Matthew L Rohlfing; Daniel P Buckley; Jacquelyn Piraquive; Cara E Stepp; Lauren F Tracy
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 2.970

9.  The Impact of Nasalance on Cepstral Peak Prominence and Harmonics-to-Noise Ratio.

Authors:  Catherine Madill; Duong Duy Nguyen; Kristie Yick-Ning Cham; Daniel Novakovic; Patricia McCabe
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-12-25       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Predictions for Three-Month Postoperative Vocal Recovery after Thyroid Surgery from Spectrograms with Deep Neural Network.

Authors:  Jeong Hoon Lee; Chang Yoon Lee; Jin Seop Eom; Mingun Pak; Hee Seok Jeong; Hee Young Son
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 3.847

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.