Banner Portal
Speech task affects the objective evaluation of dysphonic voices
PDF

Keywords

Acoustic analysis
Dysphonia
Voice

How to Cite

1.
Silva W da, Constantini AC. Speech task affects the objective evaluation of dysphonic voices. J. of Speech Sci. [Internet]. 2018 Jun. 30 [cited 2024 Apr. 17];7(1):1-15. Available from: https://econtents.bc.unicamp.br/inpec/index.php/joss/article/view/14988

Abstract

The acoustic analysis of speech has proved useful in the clinical evaluation of dysphonia, for it allows an objective assessment of the voice. However, the literature has suggested that the type of speech task used to obtain voice samples from patients (sustained vowel or connected speech) may affect both the perceptual and the acoustic evaluation of dysphonic voices. This study aimed at investigating whether the type of speech task significantly influences the acoustic analysis of dysphonic voices. Five acoustic parameters related to voice quality (cepstral peak prominence, difference between the magnitudes of the first and second harmonics, harmonics-to-noise ratio, jitter and shimmer) were automatically computed from voice samples of 5 female and 5 male subjects with and without dysphonia. These recordings consisted of three types of speech task: connected speech, count and sustained vowel. Analyses of variance with repeated measures showed that all five acoustic parameters were significantly affected by speech task. Further analyses through the Duncan’s multiple-range test indicated that the type of speech task may also influence the discrimination of dysphonic voices. It is concluded that speech task affects the acoustic assessment of dysphonic voices by significantly raising or reducing the values of the acoustic parameters.

https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v7i1.14988
PDF

References

Heman-Ackah Y, Michael D, Baroody M, Ostrowski R, Hillenbrand J, Heuer R et al. Cepstral Peak Prominence: A More Reliable Measure of Dysphonia. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. 2003;112(4):324-333.

Askenfelt A, Hammarberg B. Speech waveform perturbation analysis: A perceptual-acoustical comparison of seven measures. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1986;29(1):50-64.

Barbosa P, Madureira S. Manual de fonética acústica experimental: aplicações a dados do português. São Paulo: Cortez Editora; 2015.

Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J. Statistics review 9: one-way analysis of variance. Critical Care. 2004;8(2):130– 136.

Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program, version 6.0.06]. 2015 accessed 30 Nov 2015]. Available from: http://www.praat.org/.

Gordon M, Ladefoged P. Phonation types: a cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics. 2001;29(4):383- 406.

Halberstam B. Acoustic and Perceptual Parameters Relating to Connected Speech Are More Reliable Measures of Hoarseness than Parameters Relating to Sustained Vowels. ORL. 2004;66(2):70-73.

Heman-Ackah Y, Michael D, Goding G. The Relationship Between Cepstral Peak Prominence and Selected Parameters of Dysphonia. Journal of Voice. 2002;16(1):20-27.

Heman-Ackah Y, Sataloff R, Laureyns G, Lurie D, Michael D, Heuer R et al. Quantifying the Cepstral Peak Prominence, a Measure of Dysphonia. Journal of Voice. 2014;28(6):783-788.

Hillenbrand J, Cleveland R, Erickson R. Acoustic Correlates of Breathy Vocal Quality. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1994;37(4):769-778.

Hillenbrand J, Houde R. Acoustic Correlates of Breathy Vocal Quality: Dysphonic Voices and Continuous Speech. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1996;39(2):311-321.

Holmberg E, Hillman R, Perkell J, Guiod P, Goldman S. Comparisons Among Aerodynamic, Electroglottographic, and Acoustic Spectral Measures of Female Voice. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1995;38(6):1212-1223.

JoSS 7(1): 01-15. 2018

Lowell S, Colton R, Kelley R, Mizia S. Predictive Value and Discriminant Capacity of Cepstral- and Spectral-Based Measures During Continuous Speech. Journal of Voice. 2013;27(4):393-400.

Machado A, Barbosa P. Uso de técnicas acústicas para verificação de locutor em simulação experimental. Language And Law / Linguagem E Direito. 2014;1(2):100-113.

Martin D, Fitch J, Wolfe V. Pathologic Voice Type and the Acoustic Prediction of Severity. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1995;38(4):765-771.

Maryn Y, Corthals P, Van Cauwenberge P, Roy N, De Bodt M. Toward Improved Ecological Validity in the Acoustic Measurement of Overall Voice Quality: Combining Continuous Speech and Sustained Vowels. Journal of Voice. 2010;24(5):540-555.

Maryn Y, Roy N, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P, Corthals P. Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: A meta-analysis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2009;126(5):2619-2634.

Maryn Y, Roy N. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. Jornal da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia. 2012;24(2):107-112.

Master S, Biase N, Pedrosa V, Chiari B. O espectro médio de longo termo na pesquisa e na clínica fonoaudiológica. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica. 2006;18(1):111-120.

Parsa V, Jamieson D. Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice: sustained vowels versus continuous speech. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 2001;44(2):327-339.

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2015 accessed 30 Nov 2015]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.

Radish Kumar B, Bhat J, Fahim S, Raju R. Cepstral Analysis of Voice in Unilateral Adductor Vocal Fold Palsy. Journal of Voice. 2011;25(3):326-329.

Radish Kumar B, Bhat J, Mukhi P. Vowel Harmonic Amplitude Differences in Persons With Vocal Nodules. Journal of Voice. 2011;25(5):559-561.

Radish Kumar B, Bhat J, Prasad N. Cepstral Analysis of Voice in Persons With Vocal Nodules. Journal of Voice. 2010;24(6):651-653.

Radish Kumar B, Bhat J, Usman J. Vowel harmonic amplitude differences in individuals with unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Journal of Laryngology and Voice. 2015;5(1):7.

Roy N. Functional dysphonia. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery. 2003;11(3):144-148.

Sapienza C, Stathopoulos E. Speech task effects on acoustic and aerodynamic measures of women with vocal nodules. Journal of Voice. 1995;9(4):413-418.

Schoentgen J. Jitter in sustained vowels and isolated sentences produced by dysphonic speakers. Speech Communication. 1989;8(1):61-79.

Shama K, Krishna A, Cholayya N. Study of Harmonics-to-Noise Ratio and Critical-Band Energy Spectrum of Speech as Acoustic Indicators of Laryngeal and Voice Pathology. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing. 2006;2007(1).

Shue Y, Chen G, Alwan A. On the interdependencies between voice quality, glottal gaps, and voice-source related acoustic measures. In: Eleventh Annual Conference Of The International Speech Communication Association. 2010. p. 34-37. [accessed 26 Jan 2018] Available from: http://www.isca- speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2010/i10_0034.pdf

Speech task affects the objective evaluation of dysphonic voices

Teixeira J, Oliveira C, Lopes C. Vocal Acoustic Analysis – Jitter, Shimmer and HNR Parameters. Procedia Technology. 2013;9:1112-1122.

Wolfe V, Cornell R, Fitch J. Sentence/vowel correlation in the evaluation of dysphonia. Journal of Voice. 1995;9(3):297-303.

Wolfe V, Martin D. Acoustic correlates of dysphonia: type and severity. Journal of Communication Disorders. 1997;30(5):403-416.

Yumoto E, Gould W, Baer T. Harmonics‐to‐noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1982;71(6):1544-1550.

Zhang Y, Jiang J. Acoustic Analyses of Sustained and Running Voices From Patients With Laryngeal Pathologies. Journal of Voice. 2008;22(1):1-9.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2019 Wellington da Silva, Ana Carolina Constantini

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.