“…CPP and CPPS have been described as more reliable in dysphonic voices, since they do not rely on correct recognition of fundamental frequency (F0) and sound pressure level (SPL) to the same extent as so-called traditional acoustic measures such as jitter and shimmer (Halberstam, 2004;Heman-Ackah et al, 2002;Patel et al, 2018). Moreover, CPP and CPPS showed high correlation and accuracy indices for detection of perceptual dysphonia in sustained vowels and also in connected speech (Awan, Roy, Jette, Meltzner, & Hillman, 2010;Brinca, Batista, Tavares, Goncalves, & Moreno, 2014;Delgado, León, Jiménez, & Izquierdo, 2017;Delgado-Hernandez, Leon-Gomez, Izquierdo-Arteaga, & Llanos-Fumero, 2018;Halberstam, 2004;Hasanvand, Salehi, & Ebrahimipour, 2017;Heman-Ackah et al, 2003;Moers et al, 2012;Nuñez-Batalla et al, 2018;Phadke et al, 2018;Selamtzis, Castellana, Salvi, Carullo, & Astolfi, 2019). Even though CPP has been described as superior to HNR (Riesgo & Nöth, 2019), some works also show a strong and significant correspondence between HNR and 5 perceptual analysis of sustained vowels as a result of improvements in HNR estimation methods (Moers et al, 2012;Vaz Freitas et al, 2015).…”