The Effect of Speaking Task on Perceptual Judgment of the Severity of Dysphonic Voice

Zraick, Richard I.; Wendel, Kristen; Smith-Olinde, Laura

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.009

Cited by 74 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A study reported auditory parameters for hoarseness to be related to shimmer (28) . Considering air escape at voice production, although mean jitter and GNE values were different, post hoc analysis proved GNE reliable to classify the intensity of air escape and distinguish breathy voices from healthy voices, according to criteria established in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity of voice disorders: integration of perceptual and acoustic data in dysphonic patients

Lopes

Cavalcante

Costa

2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DescritoresThe vocal deviation from the vowel /ε/ was evaluated by consensus between three speech language pathologists, using a Visual Analog Scale. We extracted the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F 0 ), jitter, shimmer, and Glottal-to-Noise Excitation Ratio (GNE). Results: Mean F 0 was negatively correlated with the degree of roughness and positively with the degree of tension. The F 0 SD was positively correlated with the overall, roughness, tension, and instability grades. The jitter and shimmer were positively correlated with all perceptual parameters. Only the GNE distinguished between healthy and dysphonic voices and rated the degree of breathiness. The shimmer separated rough voices from not rough voices. The mean F 0 was helpful to determine the degree of phonatory tension and to separate rough voices from breathy and strained voices. Conclusion:There is a correlation between the acoustic and auditory perceptual measures. The shimmer, the GNE, and F 0 SD can be used to detect roughness, breathing, and strain, respectively. The GNE and mean F 0 are useful to classify the degree of breathiness and strain, respectively. The mean F 0 distinguished between rough, breathy, and strained voices, with rough voices more severe compared to the other two. RESUMO INTRODUCTION Voice is multidimensional(1) and its production is related to anatomic, physiological, emotional, organic, environmental, and behavioral features. Voice evaluation, therefore, must be based on these principles, with mapping of voice production and correlation with such features for one to take a truly comprehensive view of dysphonia.The purpose of voice evaluation is to analyze voice quality, that is, whether the voice is healthy or not; to diagnose voice disorders, to monitor any disease or function progression, to evaluate prognosis, and to identify possible risks to develop a disorder (2) . Overall, studies on voice evaluation and diagnosis have attempted to answer three essential clinical questions (2) : what is the measure to determine presence/absence of any voice disorder (diagnosis)? Is there evidence that the test used in evaluation can determine the nature (etiology) of a voice disorder? What is the measure capacity to determine the severity of a voice disorder?In a study (3) conducted with experienced speech language pathologists in the United States, all the 53 interviewees reported using auditoryperceptual measurements in voice evaluation followed by analysis of body posture and movements, and by dynamic voice evaluation. These subjective methods were substantially more used than objective evaluations by acoustic measurements only.However, in a systematic review, most studies (60%) on voice evaluation in patients with voice disorders used acoustic measurements and focused on presence/absence of a disorder (78%). Few articles (18%) have investigated the ability of a measurement to measure the severity of voice disorder (2) . Also, most studies have used an image of larynx as reference to define the p...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity of voice disorders: integration of perceptual and acoustic data in dysphonic patients

Lopes

Cavalcante

Costa

2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the question of what type of voice sample is most appropriate for acoustic and/or perceptual analysis has been controversial, resulting in a number of studies examining the relative suitability of sustained vowels versus samples of continuous speech (e.g., Lederle, Barkmeier-Kraemer, & Finnegan, 2012;Maryn & Roy, 2012;Moon, Chung, Park, & Kim, 2012;Zraick, Wendel, & Smith-Olinde, 2005). Arguments in favor of measuring voice quality from sustained vowels contend they are relatively time invariant; free from influences of phonetic context and thereby unaffected by intonation, stress, or speaking rate; easy to elicit, produce, and analyze; more easily controlled; and less affected by the dialect of the speaker and/or listener than continuous speech is (Maryn, Corthals, Van Cauwenberge, Roy, & De Bodt, 2010a;Zraick et al, 2005). The relative absence of articulatory and prosodic influences may also help the listener focus more closely on aspects of quality related solely to the voice source (de Krom, 1994), reducing variability in listeners' perceptual responses.…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, speech elicited in specific phonetic contexts, such as those used in the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V; Kempster, Gerratt, Verdolini Abbott, Barkmeier-Kraemer, & Hillman, 2009), can reveal the existence and nature of some voice disorders (e.g., vocal tremor [Lederle et al, 2012] and adductory spasmodic dysphonia) that may occur more commonly under certain circumstances (at voicing onsets and/or offsets, for example, Awan et al, 2010;Roy, Gouse, Mauszycki, Merrill, & Smith, 2005). However, most acoustic studies of quality assessment from continuous speech use means and/or standard deviations for acoustic measures calculated across the entire sample of speech, and perceptual studies usually assess the overall extent of dysphonia (e.g., Awan, Roy, & Dromey, 2009;de Krom, 1994;Halberstam, 2004;Lederle et al, 2012;Lowell, Colton, Kelley, & Hahn, 2011;Maryn et al, 2010a;Maryn & Roy 2012;Moon et al, 2012;Parsa & Jamieson, 2001;Revis, Giovanni, Wuyts, & Triglia, 1999;Watts & Awan, 2011;Zraick et al, 2005;see Lowell, 2012, or Maryn, Roy, De Bodt, Van Cauwenberge, & Corthals, 2009 This approach limits the extent to which such measures can index quality variations in continuous speech rather than simply overall levels of dysphonia.…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Measures of Voice Quality From Sustained Phonation and Continuous Speech

Gerratt

Kreiman

Garellek

2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The question of what type of utterance-a sustained vowel or continuous speech-is best for voice quality analysis has been extensively studied but with equivocal results. This study examines whether previously reported differences derive from the articulatory and prosodic factors occurring in continuous speech versus sustained phonation. Method: Speakers with voice disorders sustained vowels and read sentences. Vowel samples were excerpted from the steadiest portion of each vowel in the sentences. In addition to sustained and excerpted vowels, a 3rd set of stimuli was created by shortening sustained vowel productions to match the duration of vowels excerpted from continuous speech. Acoustic measures were made on the stimuli, and listeners judged the severity of vocal quality deviation. Results: Sustained vowels and those extracted from continuous speech contain essentially the same acoustic and perceptual information about vocal quality deviation. Conclusions: Perceived and/or measured differences between continuous speech and sustained vowels derive largely from voice source variability across segmental and prosodic contexts and not from variations in vocal fold vibration in the quasisteady portion of the vowels. Approaches to voice quality assessment by using continuous speech samples average across utterances and may not adequately quantify the variability they are intended to assess.

show abstract

“…This study used the sustained vowel aiming to associate it in the future with acoustic analysis and works found in the literature using the chain speech samples (10,17) . It is known that the type of sample, speech or sustained vowel contribute to the variability of the auditive perceptual evaluation (5,7) . In sustained vowels there is a subglottic and the supraglottic condition relatively constant, whereas in continuous speech are observed temporal and spectral variations caused by start and word end, breaks, deaf phonemes, phonetic context, prosodic fluctuations in fundamental frequency and intensity, speed speech, among others (5) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, the auditory-perceptual assessment has a essentially perceptive character, which makes it subject to mistakes and variations as it can be affected by several factors as evaluator past experience (6) , knowledge or not of the clinical data, type of assessed task -voice or speech (5,7) and protocol used (8) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Análise perceptivo-auditiva de vozes rugosas e soprosas: correspondência entre a escala visual analógica e a escala numérica

Baravieira

Brasolotto

Montagnoli

et al. 2016

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO Objetivo: Determinar os valores de corte dos diferentes graus de rugosidade e soprosidade vocal em uma escala visual analógica, a partir de uma escala numérica. Métodos: Foram selecionadas 150 vozes, de indivíduos de ambos os gêneros, com qualidade variando desde a ausência de rugosidade e de soprosidade até a presença desses parâmetros em grau intenso. A avaliação perceptivo-auditiva foi realizada por quatro fonoaudiólogas especialistas em voz, com a utilização da escala visual analógica de 100 mm e da escala numérica de quatro pontos. A concordância intra e interjuízes foi verificada por meio do Coeficiente de Correlação Interclasse. Os valores de corte foram obtidos com base nos valores de sensibilidade, especificidade e eficiência. Resultados: A concordância intra e interjuízes foi excelente em ambas as escalas. Os valores de corte definiram as faixas de distribuição, encontrando-se para a rugosidade: grau 0 até 8,5 mm; grau 1 de 8,5 a 28,5 mm; grau 2 de 28,5 a 59,5 mm; e grau 3 a partir de 59,5 mm. Para a soprosidade encontrou-se: grau 0 até 8,5 mm; grau 1 de 8,5 a 33,5 mm; grau 2 de 33,5 a 52,5 mm; e grau 3 a partir de 52,5 mm. Conclusão: A partir dos valores de corte encontrados para a escala visual analógica foi possível concluir que o grau 0 (zero) da escala numérica, que representa a ausência do parâmetro, corresponde a uma pequena faixa de pontuação de presença do parâmetro na escala visual analógica. Além disso, o grau 3 da escala numérica correspondeu a uma extensa faixa da escala visual analógica.

show abstract

The Effect of Speaking Task on Perceptual Judgment of the Severity of Dysphonic Voice

Cited by 74 publications

References 38 publications

Severity of voice disorders: integration of perceptual and acoustic data in dysphonic patients

Severity of voice disorders: integration of perceptual and acoustic data in dysphonic patients

Comparing Measures of Voice Quality From Sustained Phonation and Continuous Speech

Análise perceptivo-auditiva de vozes rugosas e soprosas: correspondência entre a escala visual analógica e a escala numérica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About