The Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 for the Japanese-speaking Population

Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 and Acoustic Breathiness Index in German

“…The present results showed that AVQI version 03.01 and ABI revealed a marked concurrent validity (r s = 0.86 and r s = 0.85, respectively). These results of the concurrent validity for both indices are similar to Dutch, 17,18 Japanese 19 , and Spanish 20 (AVQI: r s = 0.929, 17 r s = 0.815, 18 r s = 0.873 19 , and r s = 0.835 20 ; ABI: r s = 0.840 24 and r s = 0.826 20 ). FIGURE 2.…”

Diagnostic Accuracy of Dysphonia Classification of DSI and AVQI

“…Sustained vowels, on the other hand, are less sensitive to such phonetic variability but implicate less natural phonation as well. This acoustic index correlates meaningfully with the auditory–perceptual judgment of overall voice quality . The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table ).…”

“…The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table ). Further investigations about AVQI revealed consistent and acceptable diagnostic precision, consistent and high concurrent validity, robust interlanguage phonetic differences, test–retest variability about 0.54 for the second AVQI version, independence of the influencing factors of age and gender, and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy …”

“…7,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table I). Further investigations about AVQI revealed consistent and acceptable diagnostic precision, 7,28-38 consistent and high concurrent validity, 7,28-39 robust interlanguage phonetic differences, [29][30][31][32][33][34][37][38][39] testretest variability about 0.54 for the second AVQI version, 40 independence of the influencing factors of age and gender, 25 and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy. 28,32,41 The comparison and correlation between laryngeal imaging and other clinical methods are important to interpret the results of the techniques and increase their clinical relevance.…”

Application of the New Version of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index with Korean Speakers

“…이러한 AVQI 회귀식은 다양한 언어권에서 검증되고 있으며 초 기 버전 alpha부터 버전 2.02 (v2), 버전 3.01 (v3)까지 보고된 상태이 다 (Barsties et al, 2018a;Barsties & Maryn, 2015Delgado Hernández et al, 2018;Hosokawa et al, 2017aHosokawa et al, , 2017bKim et al, 2018a;Maryn, Corthals, Van Cauwenberge, Roy, & De Bodt, 2010a;Maryn et al, 2014;Maryn et al, 2016;Maryn & Weenink, 2015).…”