Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Korean Language

Kim, Geun‐Hyo; Lee, Jin‐Choon; Bae, In-Ho; Park, Heejune; Wang, Soo-Geun; Kwon, Soonbok

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.06.007

Cited by 28 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, continuous speech is more representative of daily speech and, therefore, can be considered to be more 'ecologically valid' [6]. Several studies in the last decade already demonstrated the robust diagnostic accuracy of AVQI [5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], its consistent and high concurrent validity [5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]19,[21][22][23][24][25] and its high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy [8,12,16,18,21]. Furthermore, studies validating the use of AVQI in different languages showed diagnostic accuracy according to inter-language phonetic differences [9][10][11][12]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case of Specificity: How Does the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Perform in Normophonic Subjects?

Batthyany

Maryn

Trauwaen³

et al. 2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acoustic voice quality index (AVQI) is a multiparametric tool based on six acoustic measurements to quantify overall voice quality in an objective manner, with the smoothed version of the cepstral peak prominence (CPPS) as its main contributor. In the last decade, many studies demonstrated its robust diagnostic accuracy and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy in different languages. The aim of the present study was to provide information regarding AVQI’s and CPPS’s performance in normophonic non-treatment-seeking subjects, since these data are still scarce; concatenated voice samples, consisting of sustained vowel phonation and continuous speech, from 123 subjects (72 females, 51 males; between 20 and 60 years old) without vocally relevant complaints were evaluated by three raters and run in AVQI v.02.06. According to this auditory-perceptual evaluation, two cohorts were set up (normophonia versus slight perceived dysphonia). First, gender effects were investigated. Secondly, between-cohort differences in AVQI and CPPS were investigated. Thirdly, with the number of judges giving G = 1 to partition three sub-levels of slight hoarseness as an independent factor, differences in AVQI and CPPS across these sub-levels were investigated; for AVQI, no significant gender effect was found, whereas, for CPPS, significant trends were observed. For both AVQI and CPPS, no significant differences were found between normophonic and slightly dysphonic subjects. For AVQI, however, this difference did approach significance; these findings emphasize the need for a normative study with a greater sample size and subsequently greater statistical power to detect possible significant effects and differences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case of Specificity: How Does the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Perform in Normophonic Subjects?

Batthyany

Maryn

Trauwaen³

et al. 2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…이러한 AVQI 회귀식은 다양한 언어권에서 검증되고 있으며 초 기 버전 alpha부터 버전 2.02 (v2), 버전 3.01 (v3)까지 보고된 상태이 다 (Barsties et al, 2018a;Barsties & Maryn, 2015Delgado Hernández et al, 2018;Hosokawa et al, 2017aHosokawa et al, , 2017bKim et al, 2018a;Maryn, Corthals, Van Cauwenberge, Roy, & De Bodt, 2010a;Maryn et al, 2014;Maryn et al, 2016;Maryn & Weenink, 2015).…”

unclassified

“…기존의 한국어를 대상으로 한 연구는 AVQIv2의 적용에 관한 것 만 보고되고, AVQIv3의 적용은 전무하다 (Kim et al, 2018a;Kim, Lee, Lee, & Kwon, 2018b;Maryn et al, 2016 (Choi, 2013;Patel et al, 2018).…”

unclassified

“…AVQI = Acoustic Voice Quality Index. (Hosokawa et al, 2017a;Kim et al, 2018a;Maryn et al, 2010a;Maryn et al, 2010b;Maryn et al, 2014;Maryn & Weenink, 2015;Núñez-Batalla, Díaz-Fresno, Álvarez-Fernández, Cordero, & Pendás, 2017) (Awan, Giovinco, & Owens, 2012;Awan, Helou, Stojadinovic, & Solomon, 2011;Heman-Ackah et al, 2003;Hillenbrand & Houde, 1996) (Barsties et al, 2018a;Barsties & Maryn, 2015Delgado Hernández et al, 2018;Hosokawa et al, 2017b Barsties & Maryn, 2012Delgado Hernández et al, 2018;Kim et al, 2018a;Lee et al, 2018;Maryn et al, 2010b;Maryn et al, 2014;Maryn et al, 2016;Maryn & Weenink, 2015;Núñez-Batalla et al, 2017;Reynolds et al, 2012;Uloza et al, 2017 (Barsties & Maryn, 2012, 2015Delgado Hernández et al, 2018;Hosokawa et al, 2017a;Kankare et al, 2015;Maryn et al, 2010b;Maryn et al, 2014;Reynolds et al, 2012;Uloza et al, 2017 Barsties et al, 2018b;Delgado Her nández et al, 2018;Hosokawa et al, 2017aHosokawa et al, , 2017b…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application of the New Version of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index with Korean Speakers

Kim¹,

Lee²,

Bae³

et al. 2018

Commun Sci Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to compute the new version of Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) and compare with existing AVQI versions. Additionally, we also investigated the correlation between AVQI measurements and auditory-perceptual ratings, and confirmed the optimal cutoff value and diagnostic predictive power to distinguish between normal and pathological voice. Methods: Voice samples of 2,369 native Korean subjects with normal voices (N= 143) and with dysphonia (N= 2,226) were recorded through both 5 seconds of sustained vowel /a/ and connected speech (Korean text "Walk"). We used the Praat script to extract the voiced segments and measure the AVQI. Additionally, two auditory-perceptual ratings (grade in GRBAS and overall severity in CAPE-V) were used by five speech language pathologists to assess the voice disorder severity. Results: Overall AVQI measurements were higher in order of AVQIv2, AVQIv4-K and AVQIv3; and AVQIv3 was significantly lower than other AVQI measures. In each version, there was a significant difference between normal and pathological voice groups. The correlation between AVQI and auditory evaluation was above .82, and the correlation with AVQIv4-K was the highest. All versions of the AVQI showed an above .94 for AUC, above 9.5 for LR(+), and below .2 for LR(-). Conclusion: AVQIv4-K is considered to have a high level of diagnostic power comparable to the existing AVQI versions.

show abstract

“…첫째, 음향학적 측정변수들에 대한 두 집단의 결과를 비교한 결과, 두 집단 간에 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 확인되었다. 본 연구에서 적용된 AVQI의 두 가지 회귀 식(v2, v3)은 선행 연구들에서 많이 사용되었다 [17][18][19].…”

unclassified

Acoustic Analysis and Auditory-Perceptual Assessment for Diagnosis of Functional Dysphonia

Kim¹,

Lee²,

Ho³

et al. 2018

J Clin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives：The purpose of this study was to compare the measured values of acoustic and auditory perceptual assessments between normal and functional dysphonia (FD) groups. Materials and Meth-ods：102 subjects with FD and 59 normal voice groups were participated in this study. Mid-vowel portion of the sustained vowel /a/ and two sentences of 'Sanchaek' were edited, concatenated, and analyzed by Praat script. And then auditory-perceptual (AP) rating was completed by three listeners. Results：The FD group showed higher acoustic voice quality index version 2.02 and version 3.01 (AVQIv2 and AVQIv3), slope, Hammarberg index (HAM), grade (G) and overall severity (OS), values than normal group. Additionally, smoothed cepstral peak prominence in Praat (PraatCPPS), tilt, low-to high spectral band energies (L/H ratio), long-term average spectrum (LTAS) in FD group were lower than normal voice group. And the correlation among measured values ranged from -0.250 to 0.960. In ROC curve analysis, cutoff values of AVQIv2, AVQIv3, PraatCPPS, slope, tilt,

show abstract

Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Korean Language

Cited by 28 publications

References 44 publications

A Case of Specificity: How Does the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Perform in Normophonic Subjects?

A Case of Specificity: How Does the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Perform in Normophonic Subjects?

Application of the New Version of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index with Korean Speakers

Acoustic Analysis and Auditory-Perceptual Assessment for Diagnosis of Functional Dysphonia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About