Effects of Vocal Intensity and Fundamental Frequency on Cepstral Peak Prominence in Patients with Voice Disorders and Vocally Healthy Controls

Brockmann-Bauser, Meike; Stan, Jarrad H. Van; Sampaio, Marília; Bohlender, Jürgen; Hillman, Robert E.; Mehta, Daryush D.

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.11.015

Cited by 54 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, male speakers tended to have higher CPP than female speakers, possibly because of increased loudness in their normal speaking voices. Similarly, Brockmann-Bauser et al (2019) found that Praat-based CPPS increased significantly with loudness for both patients with and without voice disorders. Clinicians should therefore use caution when comparing CPP values based on speech samples with different loudness levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Each recording was also analyzed in Praat (Version 6.0.40) using a PowerCepstrogram (60-Hz pitch floor, 2-ms time step, 5-kHz maximum frequency, and pre-emphasis from 50 Hz). CPPS was calculated from each PowerCepstrogram with the following settings: subtract tilt before smoothing = “no”; time averaging window = 0.01 s; quefrency averaging window = 0.001 s; peak search pitch range = 60–330 Hz; tolerance = 0.05; interpolation = “Parabolic”; tilt line quefrency range = 0.001–0 s (no upper bound); line type = “Straight”; fit method = “Robust.” These settings are identical to those used by Watts et al (2017) and Brockmann-Bauser et al (2019) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cepstral Peak Prominence Values for Clinical Voice Evaluation

Murton

Hillman

Mehta

2020

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cepstral Peak Prominence Values for Clinical Voice Evaluation

Murton

Hillman

Mehta

2020

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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].…”

Section: Study Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In seven studies, subjective and quasi-objective measures were used to assess voices: the Voice Problem Self-Assessment Scale (VPSS) [27], GRBAS scale [14,17,19,27], Visual Analog Scale evaluation (VAS) [19], Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) [21,25] and Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) [25].…”

Section: Study Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: At present, there is no clinical consensus on the concept of normal and dysphonic voices. For many years, the establishment of a consensus on the terminology related to normal and pathological voices has been studied, in order to facilitate the communication between professionals in the field of the voice. Aim: systematically review the literature to compare and learn more precisely the measurable and objective characteristics of the acoustic, aerodynamic and surface electromyographic parameters of the normal and dysphonic voices. Methods: The PRISMA 2020 methodology was used as a review protocol together with the PICO procedure to answer the research question through six databases. Results: In total, 467 articles were found. After duplicate records were removed from the selection, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and 19 articles were eligible. A qualitative synthesis of the included studies is presented in terms of their methodology and results. Conclusions: Studying the acoustic, aerodynamic, and electromyographic parameters with more precision, in both normal and dysphonic voices, will allow health professionals working in the field of voice (speech therapy, otorhinolaryngology, phoniatrics, etc.) to establish a diagnostic and detailed consensus of the vocal pathology, enhancing the communication and generalization of results worldwide.

show abstract

Instrumental Analysis of Voice

Brockmann‐Bauser

2024

The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of Vocal Intensity and Fundamental Frequency on Cepstral Peak Prominence in Patients with Voice Disorders and Vocally Healthy Controls

Cited by 54 publications

References 46 publications

Cepstral Peak Prominence Values for Clinical Voice Evaluation

Cepstral Peak Prominence Values for Clinical Voice Evaluation

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

Instrumental Analysis of Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About