Spectral Moment Analysis of Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis

Relation of Perceived Breathiness to Laryngeal Kinematics and Acoustic Measures Based on Computational Modeling

“…In addition to perceived quality, acoustic measures are often used to demonstrate change with treatment. A common finding in treatment studies is that some of these measures signal improvement while others do not (Kotby et al, 1991; Chen et al, 2007; Hoffman et al, 2010; Little, Costello, & Harries, 2011; Colton et al, 2011). This is likely because voice quality results from auditory decoding of the acoustic signal radiated at the lips, and the radiated acoustic signal is the product of the anatomical structure, kinematic characteristics, and aeroacoustic interactions of the larynx and vocal tract.…”

Voice Outcome Measures for Adult Patients With Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis: A Systematic Review

“…A total of 93% of the included studies demonstrated responsiveness to change on one or more voice outcome measures at a statistically significant level of P = < 0.05. Two studies did not document a responsiveness to change following intervention . All five categories of voice outcome measures appeared to demonstrate a responsiveness to change following intervention.…”

“…A total of six studies (21%) reported internal reliability of the selected voice outcome measures used. Four of the six studies reported the reliability of unpublished outcome measures tools: one visuo‐perceptual rating scale (n = 1) and three auditory‐perceptual rating tools . Of the published outcome measures, the GRBAS was the only tool which was found to have both published reliability and studies that reported inter/ intra‐rater reliability of the tool .…”

“…Four of the six studies reported the reliability of unpublished outcome measures tools: one visuo-perceptual rating scale (n = 1) 47 and three auditory-perceptual rating tools. 47,54,56 Of the published outcome measures, the GRBAS was the only tool which was found to have both published reliability and studies that reported inter/ intra-rater reliability of the tool. 57,63 Overall, there was limited published reliability of the voice outcome measures used in the studies and limited reporting of reliability within studies.…”

Acoustic and Perceptual Classification of Within-sample Normal, Intermittently Dysphonic, and Consistently Dysphonic Voice Types

“…7,[16][17][18] In addition, studies that have examined variability of spectral characteristics of voice (eg, via long-term average spectra) have also reported that distribution measures such as skewness and kurtosis may also show promise in the description of dysphonia. [19][20][21][22] The focus of this study was to further investigate the ability of the mean CPP and additional measures of the within-sample CPP distribution (eg, measures of CPP variability) to discriminate between typical and disordered voices. In particular, this study focused on the ability to differentiate within-sample typical, non-dysphonic voices from intermittently and consistently dysphonic voices.…”