Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Japanese Language

Hosokawa, Kiyohito; Barsties, Ben; Iwahashi, Toru; Iwahashi, M.; Kato, Chieri; Iwaki, Shinobu; Sasai, Hisanori; Miyauchi, Akira; Matsushiro, Naoki; Inohara, Hidenori; Ogawa, Makoto; Maryn, Youri

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.05.010

Cited by 64 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This has led to an uneven application of acoustic perturbation measures in clinical studies. Whereas organizations such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association are recommending supplanting jitter and shimmer measures with more robust acoustic metrics such as cepstral peak prominence (CPP) 8 , some clinical research groups are using and further developing acoustic indices incorporating jitter and shimmer measures [9][10][11][12] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic Perturbation Measures Improve with Increasing Vocal Intensity in Individuals With and Without Voice Disorders

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: In vocally healthy children and adults, speaking voice loudness differences can significantly confound acoustic perturbation measurements. This study examines the effects of voice sound pressure level (SPL) on jitter, shimmer, and harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) in adults with voice disorders and a control group with normal vocal status. STUDY DESIGN: This is a matched case-control study. METHODS: We assessed 58 adult female voice patients matched according to approximate age and occupation with 58 vocally healthy women. Diagnoses included vocal fold nodules (n = 39, 67.2%), polyps (n = 5, 8.6%), and muscle tension dysphonia (n = 14, 24.1%). All participants sustained the vowel /a/ at soft, comfortable, and loud phonation levels. Acoustic voice SPL, jitter, shimmer, and HNR were computed using Praat. The effects of loudness condition, voice SPL, pathology, differential diagnosis, age, and professional voice use level on acoustic perturbation measures were assessed using linear mixed models and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: In both patient and normative control groups, increasing voice SPL correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with decreased jitter and shimmer, and increased HNR. Voice pathology and differential diagnosis were not linked to systematically higher jitter and shimmer. HNR levels, however, were statistically higher in the patient group than in the control group at comfortable phonation levels. Professional voice use level had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on jitter, shimmer, and HNR. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical value of acoustic jitter, shimmer, and HNR may be limited if speaking voice SPL and professional voice use level effects are not controlled for. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether perturbation measures are useful clinical outcome metrics when controlling for these effects. Study Design: Matched case-control study Methods: 58 adult female voice patients, matched according to approximate age and occupation with 58 vocally healthy women, were assessed. Diagnoses included vocal fold nodules (n:39, 67.2%), polyps (n:5, 8.6%), and muscle tension dysphonia (MTD; n:14, 24.1%). All participants sustained the vowel /a/ at soft, comfortable, and loud phonation levels. Acoustic voice SPL, jitter, shimmer, and HNR were computed using Praat. The effects of loudness condition, voice SPL, pathology, differential diagnosis, age, and professional voice use level on acoustic perturbation measures were assessed using linear mixed models and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.Results: In both patient and normative control groups, increasing voice SPL correlated significantly (p<0.001) with decreased jitter and shimmer, and increased HNR. Voice pathology and differential diagnosis were not linked to systematically higher jitter and shimmer. HNR levels, however, were statistically higher in the patient versus control group at comfortable phonation levels. Professional voice use level had a significant effect (p<0.05) on jitter, shimmer, and HNR.Conclusions: The clinical value of ac...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic Perturbation Measures Improve with Increasing Vocal Intensity in Individuals With and Without Voice Disorders

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sustained vowels, on the other hand, are less sensitive to such phonetic variability but implicate less natural phonation as well. This acoustic index correlates meaningfully with the auditory–perceptual judgment of overall voice quality . The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Third, DSI and AVQI use time‐domain measures for their calculation (e.g., jitter, shimmer, and harmonics‐to‐noise ratio). Due to their reliance on a periodic signal, time‐based measures may contribute to errors in the findings for both indices, particularly for extremely severe hoarse voices (e.g., signal type III) . However, in the case of AVQI, a calculation error was found only in individual cases, and thus the application of AVQI to extremely severe hoarseness must be further investigated …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table ). Further investigations about AVQI revealed consistent and acceptable diagnostic precision, consistent and high concurrent validity, robust interlanguage phonetic differences, test–retest variability about 0.54 for the second AVQI version, independence of the influencing factors of age and gender, and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…7,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table I). Further investigations about AVQI revealed consistent and acceptable diagnostic precision, 7,28-38 consistent and high concurrent validity, 7,28-39 robust interlanguage phonetic differences, [29][30][31][32][33][34][37][38][39] testretest variability about 0.54 for the second AVQI version, 40 independence of the influencing factors of age and gender, 25 and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy. 28,32,41 The comparison and correlation between laryngeal imaging and other clinical methods are important to interpret the results of the techniques and increase their clinical relevance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations