Diagnostic Accuracy of Dysphonia Classification of DSI and AVQI

Abstract

2c. Laryngoscope, 2018.

A Case of Specificity: How Does the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Perform in Normophonic Subjects?

“…On the other hand, continuous speech is more representative of daily speech and, therefore, can be considered to be more 'ecologically valid' [6]. Several studies in the last decade already demonstrated the robust diagnostic accuracy of AVQI [5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], its consistent and high concurrent validity [5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]19,[21][22][23][24][25] and its high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy [8,12,16,18,21]. Furthermore, studies validating the use of AVQI in different languages showed diagnostic accuracy according to inter-language phonetic differences [9][10][11][12]…”

The cepstral spectral index of dysphonia, the acoustic voice quality index and the acoustic breathiness index as novel multiparametric indices for acoustic assessment of voice quality

“…Its threshold varies between AVQI versions [18,19] and languages/cultural backgrounds [20] Age has minimal-to-no influence on the AVQI score (especially for younger adults), and sex has none [21,22]. Acceptable scores have been found for AVQI on voice assessment within the dysphonia classification of voice disorders (normal versus organic and functional voice disorders) [23] and a moderate to high correlation with self-perceived, questionnaire-based voice handicap of voiceimpaired patients has been found [24,25]. The AVQI is also robust to differences in room acoustic, background noise, and microphone quality [11,24].…”