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: Effects of Speech Characteristics on Electroglottographic and Instrumental Acoustic Voice Analysis Metrics in Women With Structural Dysphonia Before and After Treatment.
    Author: Iob NA, He L, Ternström S, Cai H, Brockmann-Bauser M.
    Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2024 Jun 06; 67(6):1660-1681. PubMed ID: 38758676.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Literature suggests a dependency of the acoustic metrics, smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS) and harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR), on human voice loudness and fundamental frequency (F0). Even though this has been explained with different oscillatory patterns of the vocal folds, so far, it has not been specifically investigated. In the present work, the influence of three elicitation levels, calibrated sound pressure level (SPL), F0 and vowel on the electroglottographic (EGG) and time-differentiated EGG (dEGG) metrics hybrid open quotient (OQ), dEGG OQ and peak dEGG, as well as on the acoustic metrics CPPS and HNR, was examined, and their suitability for voice assessment was evaluated. METHOD: In a retrospective study, 29 women with a mean age of 25 years (± 8.9, range: 18-53) diagnosed with structural vocal fold pathologies were examined before and after voice therapy or phonosurgery. Both acoustic and EGG signals were recorded simultaneously during the phonation of the sustained vowels /ɑ/, /i/, and /u/ at three elicited levels of loudness (soft/comfortable/loud) and unconstrained F0 conditions. RESULTS: A linear mixed-model analysis showed a significant effect of elicitation effort levels on peak dEGG, HNR, and CPPS (all p < .01). Calibrated SPL significantly influenced HNR and CPPS (both p < .01). Furthermore, F0 had a significant effect on peak dEGG and CPPS (p < .0001). All metrics showed significant changes with regard to vowel (all p < .05). However, the treatment had no effect on the examined metrics, regardless of the treatment type (surgery vs. voice therapy). CONCLUSIONS: The value of the investigated metrics for voice assessment purposes when sampled without sufficient control of SPL and F0 is limited, in that they are significantly influenced by the phonatory context, be it speech or elicited sustained vowels. Future studies should explore the diagnostic value of new data collation approaches such as voice mapping, which take SPL and F0 effects into account.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]