1997
DOI: 10.1159/000266469
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acoustic Measures of Dysphonic Severity across and within Voice Types

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to explore an interaction between pathologic voice type and the acoustic prediction of dysphonic severity. One hundred and two phonatory samples, representing a wide range of laryngeal conditons, were categorized by listeners into three voice types: breathy, rough, and hoarse. A second group of trained listeners rated the severity of the samples on a 7-point scale. Twenty-five frequency- and time-domain measures were used to predict perceptual severity. Multiple regression analyses… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
3

Year Published

1998
1998
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(23 reference statements)
1
25
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A similar effect of speaking task was found in the study of Wolfe et al [27] who reported significantly higher ratings of the grade of dysphonia assessed on sustained vowel than those assessed on connected speech in both dysphonic and healthy subjects. The study of Lu et al [17] showed identical findings of the ratings of roughness and breathiness, while Zraick et al [18] also reported more severe judgments of dysphonia graded on sustained vowel.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…A similar effect of speaking task was found in the study of Wolfe et al [27] who reported significantly higher ratings of the grade of dysphonia assessed on sustained vowel than those assessed on connected speech in both dysphonic and healthy subjects. The study of Lu et al [17] showed identical findings of the ratings of roughness and breathiness, while Zraick et al [18] also reported more severe judgments of dysphonia graded on sustained vowel.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…R was found to correlate quite well with jitter percent (Rho = 0.68), and B with shimmer (Rho = 0.63). These data have recently been corroborated by the findings of Wolfe et al [6], also using the Multidimensional Voice Program (MDVP) by Kay Elemetrics Corp.: in a sample of 51 pathological voices, multiple regression analysis across all voice types showed that a combination of NHR and shimmer was the best two-variable set of predictors of dysphonic severity (R = 0.63), accounting for 40% of the perceptual variance. Rough voices correlated more substantially with frequency perturbation measures than with amplitude perturbation measures, and shimmer was found to be the only significant predictor for breathiness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…This may be at odds with the study by Wolfe, Fitch and Martin (1997) comparing acoustic measures of different SD voice types with perceived severity in English SD. They reported that 'the most useful measure for the prediction of [perceptual] severity across voice types was noise-to-harmonic ratio' i.e., harshness and breathiness (Wolfe et al, 1997: 292).…”
Section: Comparison Of Subjective Severity Ratings and Quantitative Amentioning
confidence: 89%