Cepstral Peak Prominence Values for Clinical Voice Evaluation

Abstract

Purpose The goal of this study was to employ frequently used analysis methods and tasks to identify values for cepstral peak prominence (CPP) that can aid clinical voice evaluation. Experiment 1 identified CPP values to distinguish speakers with and without voice disorders. Experiment 2 was an initial attempt to estimate auditory-perceptual ratings of overall dysphonia severity using CPP values. Method CPP was computed using the Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV) program and Praat. Experiment 1 included recordings from 295 patients with medically diagnosed voice disorders and 50 vocally healthy control speakers. Speakers produced sustained /a/ vowels and the English language Rainbow Passage. CPP cutoff values that best distinguished patient and control speakers were identified. Experiment 2 analyzed recordings from 32 English speakers with varying dysphonia severity and provided preliminary validation of the Experiment 1 cutoffs. Speakers sustained the /a/ vowel and read four sentences from the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice protocol. Trained listeners provided auditory-perceptual ratings of overall dysphonia for the recordings, which were estimated using CPP values in a linear regression model whose performance was evaluated using the coefficient of determination ( r 2 ). Results Experiment 1 identified CPP cutoff values of 11.46 dB (ADSV) and 14.45 dB (Praat) for the sustained /a/ vowels and 6.11 dB (ADSV) and 9.33 dB (Praat) for the Rainbow Passage. CPP values below those thresholds indicated the presence of a voice disorder with up to 94.5% accuracy. In Experiment 2, CPP values estimated ratings of overall dysphonia with r 2 values up to .74. Conclusions The CPP cutoff values identified in Experiment 1 provide normative reference points for clinical voice evaluation based on sustained /a/ vowels and the Rainbow Passage. Experiment 2 provides an initial predictive framework that can be used to relate CPP values to the auditory perception of overall dysphonia severity based on sustained /a/ vowels and Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice sentences.

Can the Vocal Expression of Intellectually Disabled Individuals Be Used as a Pain Indicator? Initial Findings Supporting a Possible Novice Assessment Method

“…In the current study, no significant difference was found in CPP values between pain-and no-pain related productions (16 vs. 15 dB, respectively). Comparing these values to the CPP cutoff values recently reported by Murton et al (2020) may hint to the absence of voice disorders in the current sample of participants. However, as CPP values can vary widely with different speaking tasks, languages, and computation algorithms, future studies may further assess this objective measure and its relationship to pain.…”

Effects of Laryngeal Vibratory Asymmetry and Neuromuscular Compensation on Voice Quality

“…27,28 Although CPP differences between minor and major asymmetries in our results are statistically significant, these values may be of limited clinical relevance due to varying proposed cutoffs for CPP values in dysphonia evaluation. 29 Perceptual assessments are also needed to corroborate these findings in clinical settings.…”

3D-FV-FE Aeroacoustic Larynx Model for Investigation of Functional Based Voice Disorders

“…For both motion types the volume flows are rising with an increasing glottal insufficiency, whereas the corresponding volume flows of the asymmetric motion are collectively smaller than those of the symmetric motion. Samlan et al, 2014;Samlan and Story, 2017;Patel et al, 2018;Mahalingam et al, 2020;Murton et al, 2020) and has proven to be a more reliable measure of dysphonia than time-based measures (Heman-Ackah et al, 2003). The exact computation procedure is shown in Birk et al (2016).…”