The Relationship Between Auditory Perceptual Evaluation and Acoustic Measurements of the Voice in Dysphonia: Some Issues About the Task Effect on Perceptual Rating

  • Seyyedeh Maryam Khoddami Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Nazila Salary Majd Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Auditory perception, Acoustic, Voice, Dysphonia

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate construct convergent validity of the Persian version of consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice (called ATSHA), using the acoustic measurements. Moreover, the effect of voice tasks on the perceptual ratings was studied.
Materials and Methods: The study data were gathered from a total of 40 dysphonic patients (Mean±SD age=36.79±8.26 years). Perceptual voice evaluation was performed using the ATSHA during sustained vowels and sentence reading tasks. The acoustic features including fundamental frequency (F0), intensity, jitter, shimmer, and Harmonics-to-Noise Ratio (HNR) were extracted using Praat application. To assess construct validity of ATSHA, correlation between perceptual and acoustic measures were studied. The effect of tasks was investigated by mean comparison and Pearson correlation.
Results: The results demonstrate that ATSHA has significant correlation with all acoustic measures except the frequency (r=-0.08-0.35; P≥0.05). There was no significant correlation between pitch and the acoustic measures of intensity and jitter (r=-0.31; P=0.05 and r=0.24; P=0.14, respectively). The highest correlation observed between the overall severity and the HNR (r=-0.85; P<0.001). The correlation between the perceptual scores in both tasks was high (r=0.82-0.99, P<0.05).
Conclusion: The ATSHA is a valid scale for perceptual judgment on intensity, jitter, shimmer, and HNR. However, this scale could not estimate the frequency of voice in dysphonia. The current study demonstrate that vowel prolongation and sentence reading has no noticeable effect on the perceptual ratings in dysphonia.

References

Hirano M. Objective evaluation of the human voice: clinical aspects. Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1989; 41(2-3):89-144. [DOI:10.1159/000265950]
Hartl DM, Hans S, Crevier Buchman L, Laccourreye O, Vaissiere J, Brasnu D. Dysphonia: Current methods of evaluation. Annales d'Otolaryngologie et de Chirurgie Cervico-faciale. 2005; 122(4):163-72. [DOI:10.1016/S0003-438X(05)82344-8]
Sataloff RT. Professional voice. The science and art of clinical care. San Diego: Singular; 1997. [PMCID]
Carding P. Evaluating voice therapy: Measuring the effectiveness of treatment. London: Whurr Publishers; 2000.
Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques: Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2001; 258(2):77-82. [DOI:10.1007/s004050000299] [PMID]
Klein S, Piccirillo JF, Painter C. Comparative contrast of voice measurements. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. 2000; 123(3):164–9. [DOI:10.1067/mhn.2000.107682] [PMID]
Behrman A. Common practices of voice therapists in the evaluation of patients. Journal of Voice. 2005; 19(3):4540-69. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.004] [PMID]
Webb AL, Carding PN, Deary IJ, MacKenzie K, Steen N, Wilson JA. The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2004; 261(8):429-34. [DOI:10.1007/s00405-003-0707-7] [PMID]
Uloza V, Saferis V, Uloziene I. Perceptual and acoustic assessment of voice pathology and the efficacy of endolaryngeal phonomicrosurgery. Journal of Voice. 2005; 19(1):138-45. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.01.009] [PMID]
Oates J. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality pros, cons and future directions. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2009; 61(1):49-56. [DOI:10.1159/000200768] [PMID]
Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Kempster GB, Erma A, Berke GS. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: Review, tutorial and a framework for future research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1993; 36(1):21-40. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3601.21] [PMID]
Hillenbrand J, Houde RA. Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: Dysphonic voices and continuous speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1996; 39(2):311-21. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3902.311] [PMID]
Selby JC, Gilbert HR, Lerman JW. Perceptual and acoustic evaluation of individuals with laryngopharyngeal reflux pre- and post-treatment. Journal of Voice. 2002; 17(4):557-70. [DOI:10.1067/S0892-1997(03)00017-1]
Bhuta T, Patrick L, Garnett JD. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements. Journal of Voice. 2003; 18(3):299–304. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.12.004] [PMID]
Lopes LW, Lima I, Almeida L, Cavalcante D, and Almeida A. Severity of voice disorders in children: Correlations between perceptual and acoustic data. Journal of Voice. 2012; 26(6):819.e7-e12. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2012.05.008] [PMID]
Ma EP, Yiu EM. Multipara metric evaluation of dysphonic severity. Journal of Voice. 2006; 20(3):380-90. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.04.007] [PMID]
De Bodt MS, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH, Croux C. Test–retest study of the GRBAS scale: Influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. Journal of Voice. 1997; 11(1):74-80. [DOI:10.1016/S0892-1997(97)80026-4]
Kempster, GB Gerratt BR, Abbott KV, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice: Development of a standardized clinical protocol. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2009; 18(2):124-32. [DOI:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017)]
Karnell MP, Melton SD, Childes JM, Coleman TC, Dailey SA, Hoffman HT. Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders. Journal of Voice. 2007; 21(5):576-90. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.05.001] [PMID]
Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, Thibeault S, Klaben BK, Bursac Z, et al. Establishing the validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2011; 20(1):14‐22. [DOI:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105)]
Salary Majd N, Khoddami SM, Drinnan M, Kamali M, Amiri-Shavaki Y, Fallahian N. [Validity and rater reliability of Persian version of the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (Persian)]. Audiology. 2014; 23(3):65-74.
Mozzanica F, Ginocchio D, Borghi E, Bachmann C, Schindler A. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2013; 65(5):257-65. [DOI:10.1159/000356479] [PMID]
Nú-ez-Batalla F, Morato-Galán M, García-López I, Ávila-Menéndez A. Validation of the Spanish adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Acta Otorrinolaringológica Española. 2015; 66(5):249-57. [DOI:10.1016/j.otoeng.2015.08.001]
de Almeida SCC. Validity and reliability of the 2nd European Portuguese version of the “Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice” (II EP CAPE-V) [PhD. dissertation]. Setúbal: Institute of Setúbal; 2016.
Özcebe E, Aydinli FE, Tiğrak TK, İncebay Ö, Yilmaz T. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Journal of Voice. 2017; (In press). [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.11.013]
Awan SN, Roy N, Jetté ME, Meltzner GS, Hillman RE. Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: Comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 2010; 24(9):742-58. [DOI:10.3109/02699206.2010.492446] [PMID]
Vaz Freitas S, Melo Pestana P, Almeida V, Ferreira A. Integrating voice evaluation: Correlation between acoustic and audio-perceptual measures. Journal of Voice. 2015; 29(3):390.e1-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.08.007] [PMID]
Boersma P and Weenink D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.17). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2009.
Maryn Y, Corthals P, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P, and Deliyski D. Perturbation measures of voice: A comparative study between Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Praat. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2009; 61(4):217-26. [DOI:10.1159/000227999] [PMID]
De Krom G. Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1994; 37(5):985-1000. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3705.985] [PMID]
Revis J, Giovanni A, Wuyts F, Triglia JM. Comparison of different voice samples for perceptual analysis. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 1999; 51(3):108-16. [DOI:10.1159/000021485] [PMID]
Wolfe VI, Cornell R, Fitch J. Sentence/vowel correlation in the evaluation of dysphonia. Journal of Voice. 1995; 9(3):297–303. [DOI:10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80237-1]
Zraick RI, Wendel K, Smith-Olinde L. The effect of speaking task on perceptual judgment of the severity of dysphonic voice. Journal of Voice. 2005; 19(4):574-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.009] [PMID]
Published
2019-01-09
How to Cite
1.
Khoddami SM, Salary Majd N. The Relationship Between Auditory Perceptual Evaluation and Acoustic Measurements of the Voice in Dysphonia: Some Issues About the Task Effect on Perceptual Rating. jmr. 12(2):113-122.
Section
Research Article(s)