Lisa M Kopf1, Cristina Jackson-Menaldi2, Adam D Rubin3, Jean Skeffington4, Eric J Hunter5, Mark D Skowronski6, Rahul Shrivastav7. 1. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic address: lisa.m.kopf@gmail.com. 2. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Lakeshore Professional Voice Center, Lakeshore Ear, Nose, and Throat Center, St. Clair Shores, Michigan; Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Lakeshore Professional Voice Center, Lakeshore Ear, Nose, and Throat Center, St. Clair Shores, Michigan; William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. 4. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Lakeshore Professional Voice Center, Lakeshore Ear, Nose, and Throat Center, St. Clair Shores, Michigan. 5. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 6. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 7. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; Office of the Vice President for Instruction, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of treatment outcomes is critical for the spectrum of voice treatments (ie, surgical, behavioral, or pharmacological). Outcome measures typically include visual (eg, stroboscopic data), auditory (eg, Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice; Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain), and objective correlates of vocal fold vibratory characteristics, such as acoustic signals (eg, harmonics-to-noise ratio, cepstral peak prominence) or patient self-reported questionnaires (eg, Voice Handicap Index, Voice-Related Quality of Life). Subjective measures often show high variability, whereas most acoustic measures of voice are only valid for signals where some degree of periodicity can be assumed. However, this assumption is often invalid for dysphonic voices where signal periodicity is suspect. Furthermore, many of these measures are not useful in isolation for diagnostic purposes. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a recently developed algorithm (Auditory Sawtooth Waveform Inspired Pitch Estimator-Prime [Auditory-SWIPE']) for estimating pitch and pitch strength for dysphonic voices. Whereas fundamental frequency is a physical attribute of a signal, pitch is its psychophysical correlate. As such, the perception of pitch can extend to most signals irrespective of their periodicity. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were conducted for three groups of patients evaluated and treated for voice problems at a major voice center: (1) muscle tension dysphonia/functional dysphonia, (2) vocal fold mass(es), and (3) presbyphonia. All patients were recorded before and after surgical/behavioral treatment for voice disorders. Pitch and pitch strength for each speaker were computed with the Auditory-SWIPE' algorithm. RESULTS: Comparison of pre- and posttreatment data provides support for pitch strength as a measure of treatment outcomes for dysphonic voices.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of treatment outcomes is critical for the spectrum of voice treatments (ie, surgical, behavioral, or pharmacological). Outcome measures typically include visual (eg, stroboscopic data), auditory (eg, Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice; Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain), and objective correlates of vocal fold vibratory characteristics, such as acoustic signals (eg, harmonics-to-noise ratio, cepstral peak prominence) or patient self-reported questionnaires (eg, Voice Handicap Index, Voice-Related Quality of Life). Subjective measures often show high variability, whereas most acoustic measures of voice are only valid for signals where some degree of periodicity can be assumed. However, this assumption is often invalid for dysphonic voices where signal periodicity is suspect. Furthermore, many of these measures are not useful in isolation for diagnostic purposes. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a recently developed algorithm (Auditory Sawtooth Waveform Inspired Pitch Estimator-Prime [Auditory-SWIPE']) for estimating pitch and pitch strength for dysphonic voices. Whereas fundamental frequency is a physical attribute of a signal, pitch is its psychophysical correlate. As such, the perception of pitch can extend to most signals irrespective of their periodicity. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were conducted for three groups of patients evaluated and treated for voice problems at a major voice center: (1) muscle tension dysphonia/functional dysphonia, (2) vocal fold mass(es), and (3) presbyphonia. All patients were recorded before and after surgical/behavioral treatment for voice disorders. Pitch and pitch strength for each speaker were computed with the Auditory-SWIPE' algorithm. RESULTS: Comparison of pre- and posttreatment data provides support for pitch strength as a measure of treatment outcomes for dysphonic voices.
Authors: Jennifer M Vojtech; Roxanne K Segina; Daniel P Buckley; Katharine R Kolin; Monique C Tardif; J Pieter Noordzij; Cara E Stepp Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Pasquale Bottalico; Juliana Codino; Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutiva; Katherine Marks; Charles J Nudelman; Jean Skeffington; Rahul Shrivastav; Maria Cristina Jackson-Menaldi; Eric J Hunter; Adam D Rubin Journal: J Voice Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Adam D Rubin; Cristina Jackson-Menaldi; Lisa M Kopf; Katherine Marks; Jean Skeffington; Mark D Skowronski; Rahul Shrivastav; Eric J Hunter Journal: J Voice Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.009