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: Auditory Perception of Roughness and Breathiness by Dysphonic Women.
    Author: Paz KEDS, de Almeida AAF, Almeida LNA, Sousa ESDS, Lopes LW.
    Journal: J Voice; 2024 Sep; 38(5):1249.e1-1249.e18. PubMed ID: 35082050.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the auditory perception of roughness and breathiness by dysphonic women. METHODS: Twenty-two dysphonic native Brazilian Portuguese women participated in this research. All participants underwent audiological evaluation and laryngeal examination to confirm the diagnosis. During the tests, they recorded the sustained vowel /Ɛ/. A speech-language pathologist performed the auditory-perceptual judgment of voice quality for these vocal samples, categorizing the general degree of vocal deviation (mild, moderate, and severe degree) and the predominant type of deviation (roughness or breathiness). Thirty-two (32) stimuli were selected from a voice database, including twenty-four (24) dysphonic voice samples and eight (8) voice samples from vocally healthy women. The authors conducted five perception experiments, being three categorization tasks (normal vs. deviated, breathy vs. nonbreathy, rough vs. nonrough) and two tasks for discriminating the degree of deviation (roughness degree and breathiness degree). RESULTS: The experiments showed a difference between the answers for presence/absence of deviation, presence/absence of breathiness, and presence/absence of roughness in the stimuli, and a difference in the proportion of similar answers of dysphonic women (P < 0.001) regarding the identification of the deviation. Participants classified a large part of the deviated (57.9%), breathy (63.13%), and rough (65.31%) voices as normal. The degree of vocal deviation (P = 0.008) and the degree of roughness in the stimuli correlated positively with the proportion of similar answers of the participants. As for the discrimination of breathiness degrees, less deviated (normal and mild) voices were less discriminated, and more deviated (moderate and severe) voices were better discriminated. Regarding the discrimination of roughness degrees, only the voices with severe deviations showed good discrimination. CONCLUSION: Dysphonic women had a high rate of not similar answers in the identification of normal and deviated voices. They identified more than half of the deviated voices as normal. Samples with more severe deviations were proportionally more identified as deviated by the participants. The greater the vocal deviation of the participants' voices, the smallest the number of similar answers. Participants had a high rate of not similar answers in the identification of normal and breathy voices. Dysphonic women show less ability to perceive mildly and moderately breathy voices in the breathy category. Participants had a high rate of similar answers in the identification of normal and rough voices. Dysphonic women show less ability to perceive mildly and moderately breathy voices in the breathy category. Participants show less ability to perceive only mildly roughness voices with similar responses. Dysphonic women could discriminate between voices with adjacent degrees of roughness but had a low percentage of similar answers for discrimination between voices with adjacent degrees of breathiness.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]