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: Accuracy of Acoustic Analysis Measurements in the Evaluation of Patients With Different Laryngeal Diagnoses.
    Author: Lopes LW, Batista Simões L, Delfino da Silva J, da Silva Evangelista D, da Nóbrega E Ugulino AC, Oliveira Costa Silva P, Jefferson Dias Vieira V.
    Journal: J Voice; 2017 May; 31(3):382.e15-382.e26. PubMed ID: 27742492.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the accuracy of acoustic measures in discriminating between patients with different laryngeal diagnoses. STUDY DESIGN: The study design is descriptive, cross-sectional, and retrospective. METHODS: A total of 279 female patients participated in the research. Acoustic measures of the mean and standard deviation (SD) values of the fundamental frequency (F0), jitter, shimmer, and glottal to noise excitation (GNE) were extracted from the emission of the vowel /ε/. RESULTS: Isolated acoustic measures do not demonstrate adequate performance in discriminating patients with and without laryngeal alteration. The combination of GNE, SD of the F0, jitter, and shimmer improved the ability to classify patients with and without laryngeal alteration. In isolation, the SD of the F0, shimmer, and GNE presented acceptable performance in discriminating individuals with different laryngeal diagnoses. The combination of acoustic measurements caused discrete improvement in performance of the classifier to discriminate healthy larynx vs vocal polyp (SD of the F0, shimmer, and GNE), healthy larynx vs unilateral vocal fold paralysis (SD of the F0 and jitter), healthy larynx vs vocal nodules (SD of the F0 and jitter), healthy larynx vs sulcus vocalis (SD of the F0 and shimmer), and healthy larynx vs voice disorder due to gastroesophageal reflux (F0 mean, jitter, and shimmer). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated acoustic measures do not demonstrate adequate performance in discriminating patients with and without laryngeal alteration, although they present acceptable performance in classifying different laryngeal diagnoses. Combined acoustic measures present an acceptable capacity to discriminate between the presence and the absence of laryngeal alteration and to differentiate several laryngeal diagnoses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]