An Examination of Pre- and Posttreatment Acoustic Versus Auditory Perceptual Analyses of Voice Across Four Common Voice Disorders

Gillespie, Amanda I.; Gartner‐Schmidt, Jackie; Lewandowski, Ali; Awan, Shaheen N.

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.04.018

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early and accurate diagnosis are essential to optimise patients’ vocal health outcomes. Traditionally, voice assessment and the evaluation of voice rehabilitative outcomes have focused upon voice quality [ 2 , 3 ] and patient-reported outcomes [ 4 ] as measures of voice function and efficiency. This assessment proforma typically involves the collection of a patient’s case history information, acoustic voice assessment and auditory perceptual judgement of the patient’s voice quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature review

Chacon,

Nguyen,

Holik

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systematically evaluate the evidence for the reliability, sensitivity and specificity of existing measures of vowel-initial voice onset. Methods A literature search was conducted across electronic databases for published studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed Central, IEEE Xplore) and grey literature (ProQuest for unpublished dissertations) measuring vowel onset. Eligibility criteria included research of any study design type or context focused on measuring human voice onset on an initial vowel. Two independent reviewers were involved at each stage of title and abstract screening, data extraction and analysis. Data extracted included measures used, their reliability, sensitivity and specificity. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE as the data of interest was extracted. Results The search retrieved 6,983 records. Titles and abstracts were screened against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer responsible for conflict resolution. Thirty-five papers were included in the review, which identified five categories of voice onset measurement: auditory perceptual, acoustic, aerodynamic, physiological and visual imaging. Reliability was explored in 14 papers with varied reliability ratings, while sensitivity was rarely assessed, and no assessment of specificity was conducted across any of the included records. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate with high variability in methodology and voice onset measures used. Conclusions A range of vowel-initial voice onset measurements have been applied throughout the literature, however, there is a lack of evidence regarding their sensitivity, specificity and reliability in the detection and discrimination of voice onset types. Heterogeneity in study populations and methods used preclude conclusions on the most valid measures. There is a clear need for standardisation of research methodology, and for future studies to examine the practicality of these measures in research and clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature review

Chacon,

Nguyen,

Holik

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…32 Although these measures can be used to differentiate AdLD and MTD, they are not specific to the primary signs of LD; the CSID and LTAS have been used to describe other types of voice disorders as well. [33][34][35][36] Moreover, the CSID relied on task-specificity (i.e., the difference in CSID of connected speech and vowels), and the LTAS relied on an all-voiced sentence to maximize the potential symptoms elicited in speakers with AdLD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Creak Differentiates Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia and Muscle Tension Dysphonia

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether automated estimates of vocal creak would differentiate speakers with adductor laryngeal dystonia (AdLD) from speakers with muscle tension dysphonia (MTD) and speakers without voice disorders.MethodsSixteen speakers with AdLD, sixteen speakers with MTD, and sixteen speakers without voice disorders were recorded in a quiet environment reading aloud a standard paragraph. An open‐source creak detector was used to calculate the percentage of creak (% creak) in each of the speaker's six recorded sentences.ResultsA Kruskal‐Wallis one‐way analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant effect of group on the % creak with a large effect size. Pairwise Wilcoxon tests revealed a statistically significant difference in % creak between speakers with AdLD and controls as well as between speakers with AdLD and MTD. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses indicated that % creak differentiated AdLD from both controls and speakers with MTD with high sensitivity and specificity (area under the curve statistics of 0.94 and 0.86, respectively).ConclusionPercentage of creak as calculated by an automated creak detector may be useful as a quantitative indicator of AdLD, demonstrating the potential for use as a screening tool or to aid in a differential diagnosis.Level of Evidence3 Laryngoscope, 133:2687–2694, 2023

show abstract

“…18,19 Although telemedicine solutions are forthcoming, the inability to perform laryngoscopy remotely is a major barrier to remote triage of dysphonia. 3 Auditory-perceptual characteristics colloquially correlate with different disorders, 17,20,21 but are not used for diagnosis. 3 The exception is for spasmodic dysphonia (SD) and vocal tremor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining the Performance of Clinician's Ability to Screen for Laryngeal Mass From Voice

Wandell

Law

Maxin

et al. 2023

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Defining a clinician's ability to perceptually identify mass from voice will inform the feasibility, design priorities, and performance standards for tools developed to screen for laryngeal mass from voice. This study defined clinician ability of and examined the impact of expertise on screening for laryngeal mass from voice.Study Design. Task comparison study between experts and nonexperts rating voices for the probability of a laryngeal mass.Setting. Online, remote.Methods. Experts (voice-focused speech-language pathologists and otolaryngologists) and nonexperts (general medicine providers) rated 5-s/i/voice samples (with pathology defined by laryngoscopy) for the probability of laryngeal mass via an online survey. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimated interrater and intrarater reliability. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated. A linear mixed effects model examined the impact of expertise and pathology on ratings.Results. Forty clinicians (21 experts and 19 nonexperts) evaluated 344 voice samples. Experts outperformed nonexperts, with a higher area under the curve (70% vs 61%), sensitivity (49% vs 36%), and specificity (83% vs 77%) (all comparisons p < .05). Interrater reliability was fair for experts and poor for nonexperts (ICC: 0.48 vs 0.34), while intrarater reliability was excellent and good, respectively (ICC: 0.9 and 0.6). The main effects of expertise and underlying pathology were significant in the linear model (p < .001). Conclusion.Clinicians demonstrate inadequate performance screening for laryngeal mass from voice to use auditory perception for dysphonia triage. Experts' superior performance indicates that there is acoustic information in a voice that may be utilized to detect laryngeal mass based on voice.

show abstract

An Examination of Pre- and Posttreatment Acoustic Versus Auditory Perceptual Analyses of Voice Across Four Common Voice Disorders

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature review

Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature review

Automated Creak Differentiates Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia and Muscle Tension Dysphonia

Defining the Performance of Clinician's Ability to Screen for Laryngeal Mass From Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About