Voice Disorder Detection And Classification- A Review

Jegan, R.; R, Jayagowri

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3734762

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We only investigated the /i/phonation because it opposes the vocal folds, which we hypothesize would enable mass detection. Practically, sustained vowels are the most widely available in public voice pathology databases, 36 are less affected by speaker psychoacoustic complexity, nonvoice factors, or dialect, and require less preprocessing for analysis 15,52 . However, breathiness and roughness are perceived differentially based on vowel input 53 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We chose the /i/vowel as our voice input because it opposes the vocal folds during phonation to create a glottic‐generated acoustic signal during vocal fold vibration, which we posit would be affected if a mass were present. Further, sustained phonation is more available in published datasets (therefore more applicable to ML) and less influenced by speaker idiosyncrasies 36 . For the main survey, an audio player was embedded into each question with the relevant 5‐s/i/voice sample.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, sustained phonation is more available in published datasets (therefore more applicable to ML) and less influenced by speaker idiosyncrasies. 36 For the main survey, an audio player was embedded into each question with the relevant 5-s/i/voice sample. Clinicians were allowed to listen to the voice sample multiple times and then answer 2 questions: rate the probability of the presence of laryngeal mass, from 0% to 100% by 20% increments.…”

Section: Survey Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defining the Performance of Clinician's Ability to Screen for Laryngeal Mass From Voice

Wandell

Law

Maxin

et al. 2023

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Defining a clinician's ability to perceptually identify mass from voice will inform the feasibility, design priorities, and performance standards for tools developed to screen for laryngeal mass from voice. This study defined clinician ability of and examined the impact of expertise on screening for laryngeal mass from voice.Study Design. Task comparison study between experts and nonexperts rating voices for the probability of a laryngeal mass.Setting. Online, remote.Methods. Experts (voice-focused speech-language pathologists and otolaryngologists) and nonexperts (general medicine providers) rated 5-s/i/voice samples (with pathology defined by laryngoscopy) for the probability of laryngeal mass via an online survey. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimated interrater and intrarater reliability. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated. A linear mixed effects model examined the impact of expertise and pathology on ratings.Results. Forty clinicians (21 experts and 19 nonexperts) evaluated 344 voice samples. Experts outperformed nonexperts, with a higher area under the curve (70% vs 61%), sensitivity (49% vs 36%), and specificity (83% vs 77%) (all comparisons p < .05). Interrater reliability was fair for experts and poor for nonexperts (ICC: 0.48 vs 0.34), while intrarater reliability was excellent and good, respectively (ICC: 0.9 and 0.6). The main effects of expertise and underlying pathology were significant in the linear model (p < .001). Conclusion.Clinicians demonstrate inadequate performance screening for laryngeal mass from voice to use auditory perception for dysphonia triage. Experts' superior performance indicates that there is acoustic information in a voice that may be utilized to detect laryngeal mass based on voice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Survey Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation