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: Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) vs Praat for Assessing Euphonic Subjects: A Preliminary Study on the Gender-discriminating Power of Acoustic Analysis Software.
    Author: Lovato A, De Colle W, Giacomelli L, Piacente A, Righetto L, Marioni G, de Filippis C.
    Journal: J Voice; 2016 Nov; 30(6):765.e1-765.e5. PubMed ID: 26975896.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the discriminatory power of the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) and Praat in distinguishing the gender of euphonic adults. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. METHODS: The recordings of 100 euphonic volunteers (50 males and 50 females) producing a sustained vowel /a/ were analyzed with MDVP and Praat software. RESULTS: Both computer programs identified significant differences between male and female volunteers in absolute jitter (MDVP P < 0.00001 and Praat P < 0.00001) and in shimmer in decibel (dB) (MDVP P = 0.006 and Praat P = 0.001). Using the scale proposed by Hosmer and Lemeshow, we found no gender discrimination for shimmer in dB with either the MDVP (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC] = 0.658) or Praat (AUC = 0.682). In our series, on the other hand, MDVP absolute jitter achieved an acceptable discrimination between males and females (AUC = 0.752), and Praat absolute jitter achieved an outstanding discrimination (AUC = 0.901). The discriminatory power of Praat absolute jitter was significantly higher than that of the MDVP (P = 0.003). Absolute jitter sensitivity and specificity were also higher for Praat (83% and 80%) than for the MDVP (74% and 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Differences attributable to a subject's gender and to the software used to measure acoustic parameters should be carefully considered in both research and clinical settings. Further studies are needed to test the discriminatory power of different voice analysis programs when differentiating between normal and dysphonic voices.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]