Acoustic Analysis of Four Common Voice Diagnoses: Moving Toward Disorder-Specific Assessment

Comparison of voice outcomes after trial and long‐term vocal fold augmentation in vocal fold atrophy

“…This study corroborates findings by Gillespie et al and Dastolfo et al, who studied outcome measures following long‐term augmentation in patients with vocal fold atrophy. These authors found no significant difference, in the same aerodynamic (unpublished data) and acoustic measures as reported in this current study, before and after long‐term augmentation. Finally, this study was primarily focused on the VHI‐10 score and secondarily on aerodynamic and acoustic measures, which clearly may not represent the whole picture in terms of outcome following intervention for vocal fold atrophy patients.…”

Immediate Effect of Stimulability Assessment on Acoustic, Aerodynamic, and Patient-Perceptual Measures of Voice

“…The lack of significant change in acoustic measures is not surprising and is in agreement with the literature showing that many cepstral outcomes do not change, even after intensive voice therapy, or even surgery. 14 In most cases, both the SLP and patient heard an improvement in the sound of the voice as a result of the stimulability task, which is an important indicator of success in voice. Despite not focusing specifically on laryngeal musculature (ie, via massage or reposturing), 46% of patients noted an improvement in the feel of voice after the stimulability trial.…”

Pitch Strength as an Outcome Measure for Treatment of Dysphonia

“…For example, Gillipsie et al (2014) looked at CPP and CSID in four distinct patient populations. 12 These researchers found that the following measures showed significant differences pre- to post-treatment: mean CPP ( p =0.02) and CPP standard deviation (SD) in vowels ( p =0.01) for patients with excised benign vocal fold lesions, CSID in speech ( p =0.02) and CPP SD in speech ( p =0.05) for patients with thyroplasty medialization for unilateral vocal fold paralysis, and CSID in speech ( p =0.02) for patients with muscle tension dysphonia. Another study found a statistically significant change in CPP for individuals with muscle tension dysphonia: CPP in vowels ( p =0.03) and CPP in speech ( p =0.02).…”