These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Suitability of acoustic perturbation measures in analysing periodic and nearly periodic voice signals.
    Author: Ma EP, Yiu EM.
    Journal: Folia Phoniatr Logop; 2005; 57(1):38-47. PubMed ID: 15655340.
    Abstract:
    In recent years, acoustic perturbation measurement has gained clinical and research popularity due to the ease of availability of commercial acoustic analysing software packages in the market. However, because the measurement itself depends critically on the accuracy of frequency tracking from the voice signal, researchers argue that perturbation measures are not suitable for analysing dysphonic voice samples, which are aperiodic in nature. This study compares the fundamental frequency, relative amplitude perturbation, shimmer percent and noise-to-harmonic ratio between a group of dysphonic and non-dysphonic subjects. One hundred and twelve dysphonic subjects (93 females and 19 males) and 41 non-dysphonic subjects (35 females and 6 males) participated in the study. All the 153 voice samples were categorized into type I (periodic or nearly periodic), type II (signals with subharmonic frequencies that approach the fundamental frequency) and type III (aperiodic) signals. Only the type I (periodic and nearly periodic) voice signals were acoustically analysed for perturbation measures. Results revealed that the dysphonic female group presented significantly lower fundamental frequency, significantly higher relative amplitude perturbation and shimmer percent values than the non-dysphonic female group. However, none of these three perturbation measures were able to differentiate between male dysphonic and male non-dysphonic subjects. The noise-to-harmonic ratio failed to differentiate between the dysphonic and non-dysphonic voices for both gender groups. These results question the sensitivity of acoustic perturbation measures in detecting dysphonia and suggest that contemporary acoustic perturbation measures are not suitable for analysing dysphonic voice signals, which are even nearly periodic.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]