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: Differences and Reliability of Linear and Nonlinear Acoustic Measures as a Function of Vocal Intensity in Individuals With Voice Disorders.
    Author: de Oliveira Florencio V, Almeida AA, Balata P, Nascimento S, Brockmann-Bauser M, Lopes LW.
    Journal: J Voice; 2023 Sep; 37(5):663-681. PubMed ID: 34116889.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Linear acoustic indices are significantly influenced by speaking voice intensity. The main aim of this work was to compare acoustic measures based on linear and nonlinear models in different speaking voice intensity levels and to analyze the reliability of those measures in different intensity levels in subjects with voice disorders. METHODS: 435 samples from subjects (314 women, 121 men with a mean age of 41.07 ± 13.73) diagnosed with various voice disorders were used. In total, 17 acoustic measures were derived from the vowel /ɛ/ sustained at three intensity levels (soft, comfortable, and loud). Five were linear (standard deviation of the fundamental frequency (f0), jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) and smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS)), and twelve were nonlinear measures, namely correlation dimension (D2), correlation entropy (H2), first minimum of the mutual information function (FMMI), relative entropy (ENTR-R), largest Lyapunov exponent (Lyap), determinism (DET), transitivity, mean diagonal line length (Lmed), Shannon entropy (ENTR-S), mean length of vertical structures, also known as trapping time (TT), laminarity (LAM) and recurrence period density entropy (RPDE). Differences between speaking voice intensity levels were assessed by Friedman's test and Nemenyi as posthoc test. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to investigate if each acoustic measure remains in agreement (reliability) between different voice intensity levels. RESULTS: There were significant differences in all acoustic measures about vocal intensity level (P < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient was very good for HNR (>0.61) and good for Lyap, DET, ENTR-S, Lmed, RPDE, and TT (0.41-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: All acoustic measures varied as a function of vocal intensity in voice disordered adults, while this relation was different for linear and nonlinear measures. Only the measures HNR, Lyap, DET, ENTR-S, Lmed, RPDE and TT had an acceptable reliability between different voice intensity levels. Therefore, patient`s voice SPL should be controlled or indicated during acoustic vocal assessment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]