The validity of acoustic assessments in clinical applications remains unproven. Measurement reliability is still limited and might be greatly improved with relatively simple changes and consensus in measurement protocols and techniques. For instance, clinical assessment procedures and current normative values would have to be revised considering gender and vowel. Thus, future research might establish the validity and potential of clinical acoustic assessments.

OBJECTIVE: In vocally healthy children and adults, speaking voice loudness differences can significantly confound acoustic perturbation measurements. This study examines the effects of voice sound pressure level (SPL) on jitter, shimmer, and harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) in adults with voice disorders and a control group with normal vocal status. STUDY DESIGN: This is a matched case-control study. METHODS: We assessed 58 adult female voice patients matched according to approximate age and occupation with 58 vocally healthy women. Diagnoses included vocal fold nodules (n = 39, 67.2%), polyps (n = 5, 8.6%), and muscle tension dysphonia (n = 14, 24.1%). All participants sustained the vowel /a/ at soft, comfortable, and loud phonation levels. Acoustic voice SPL, jitter, shimmer, and HNR were computed using Praat. The effects of loudness condition, voice SPL, pathology, differential diagnosis, age, and professional voice use level on acoustic perturbation measures were assessed using linear mixed models and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: In both patient and normative control groups, increasing voice SPL correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with decreased jitter and shimmer, and increased HNR. Voice pathology and differential diagnosis were not linked to systematically higher jitter and shimmer. HNR levels, however, were statistically higher in the patient group than in the control group at comfortable phonation levels. Professional voice use level had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on jitter, shimmer, and HNR. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical value of acoustic jitter, shimmer, and HNR may be limited if speaking voice SPL and professional voice use level effects are not controlled for. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether perturbation measures are useful clinical outcome metrics when controlling for these effects. Study Design: Matched case-control study Methods: 58 adult female voice patients, matched according to approximate age and occupation with 58 vocally healthy women, were assessed. Diagnoses included vocal fold nodules (n:39, 67.2%), polyps (n:5, 8.6%), and muscle tension dysphonia (MTD; n:14, 24.1%). All participants sustained the vowel /a/ at soft, comfortable, and loud phonation levels. Acoustic voice SPL, jitter, shimmer, and HNR were computed using Praat. The effects of loudness condition, voice SPL, pathology, differential diagnosis, age, and professional voice use level on acoustic perturbation measures were assessed using linear mixed models and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.Results: In both patient and normative control groups, increasing voice SPL correlated significantly (p<0.001) with decreased jitter and shimmer, and increased HNR. Voice pathology and differential diagnosis were not linked to systematically higher jitter and shimmer. HNR levels, however, were statistically higher in the patient versus control group at comfortable phonation levels. Professional voice use level had a significant effect (p<0.05) on jitter, shimmer, and HNR.Conclusions: The clinical value of ac...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS) and harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) are acoustic measures related to the periodicity, harmonicity, and noise components of an acoustic signal. To date, there is little evidence about the advantages of CPPS over HNR in voice diagnostics. Recent studies indicate that voice fundamental frequency (F0) and intensity (sound pressure level [SPL]), sample duration (DUR), vowel context (speech vs. sustained phonation), and syllable stress (SS) may influence CPPS and HNR results. The scope of this work was to investigate the effects of voice F0 and SPL, DUR, SS, and token on CPPS and HNR in dysphonic voices. Method In this retrospective study, 27 Brazilian Portuguese speakers with voice disorders were investigated. Recordings of sustained vowels (SVs) /a:/ and manually extracted vowels (EVs) /a/ from Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice sentences were acoustically analyzed with the Praat program. Results There was a highly significant effect of F0, SPL, and DUR on both CPPS and HNR ( p < .001), whereas SS and vowel context significantly affected CPPS only ( p < .05). Higher SPL, F0, and lower DUR were related to higher CPPS and HNR. SVs moderately-to-highly correlated with EVs for CPPS, whereas HNR had few and moderate correlations. In addition, CPPS and HNR highly correlated in SVs and seven EVs ( p < .05). Conclusion Speaking prosodic variations of F0, SPL, and DUR influenced both CPPS and HNR measures and led to acoustic differences between sustained and excised vowels, especially in CPPS. Vowel context, prosodic factors, and token type should be controlled for in clinical acoustic voice assessment.

No abstract