Assessment of dysphonia due to benign vocal fold lesions by acoustic and aerodynamic indices: a multivariate analysis

Abstract

The goal was to identify acoustic and aerodynamic indices that allow the discrimination of a benign organic dysphonic voice from a normal voice. Fifty-three patients affected by dysphonia caused by vocal folds benign lesions, and a control group were subjected to maximum phonation time (MPT) measurements, GRB perceptual evaluations and acoustic/aerodynamic tests. All analyzed variables except the airflow variation coefficient were significantly different between the two groups. The unique significant factors in the discrimination between healthy and dysphonic subjects were the aerodynamic indices of MPT and Glottal efficiency index, and the acoustic index Shimmer. These results show that a combination of three parameters can discriminate a voice deviance and highlight the importance of a multidimensional assessment for objective voice evaluation.

Multidimensional Assessment of the Effectiveness of Group Voice Therapy

“…9 The acoustic indices considered were percent jitter (computed as the mean absolute difference between the periods of adjacent cycles divided by the mean period; the proportion is then multiplied by 100 to get a percentage), percent shimmer (obtained similarly using peak-to-peak amplitudes), and the harmonicsto-noise ratio (HNR, in which H is the energy of the averaged wave form, and N is the mean energy of the differences between the individual periods and the averaged wave form) expressed in decibel. 10 2. An airway-interruption method for indirectly estimating subglottic pressure and phonation threshold pressure (PTP).…”

Acoustic, Myoelectric, and Aerodynamic Parameters of Euphonic and Dysphonic Voices: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

“…Table 1 shows the summary of the methodology used in the 19 studies included in the review. In most of them, a sample made up of two groups was observed: an experimental group made up of people with vocal pathology and a control group made up of people without vocal pathology [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Another three were made up of a group of volunteers with vocal pathology [26][27][28] and two more were composed of volunteers without vocal pathology [29,30].…”

The Advanced Voice Function Assessment Databases (AVFAD): Tools for Voice Clinicians and Speech Research

“…According to literature [8], the voices of speakers with organic disorders of the larynx have higher Jitter and Shimmer and a lower HNR relative to the voices of normal speakers. Thereby, the results of this study (presented in Tables 1 and 2) are supported by literature [32], since for both genders, normal participants had statistically significant lower values of Jitter and Shimmer.…”

“…There have been various scientific studies along the past 40 years that compare, acoustically, normal and disordered voices [8,10,16,27,31,37]. For Portuguese, there have been some voice research on vocal quality [3,6,33,34,41,42,49], distinction between pathological voice and normal voice through acoustic analysis [5,12,13,21,36] and the prevalence of laryngeal disorders [7,39].…”

“…The normative voice data presented in this book chapter is important to typify voice pathologies and when evaluating treatment success. For instance, it has long been known [32] that the voices of speakers with organic disorders of the larynx have higher Jitter and Shimmer and a lower HNR relative to the voices of normal speakers [8].…”