The effect of visible speech in the perceptual rating of pathological voices

Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 133, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 178-185

  Martens, Jan W M A F ^a   Versnel, Huib ^a   Dejonckere, Philippe H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; BODY BUILD; BREATHING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HEARING; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; KAPPA STATISTICS; LARYNX DISORDER; NERVOUSNESS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL STRESS; RATING SCALE; RECORDING; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH; VOICE; VOICE CHANGE;

HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOICE DISORDERS; VOICE QUALITY;

EID: 33847103196     PISSN: 08864470     EISSN: 08864470     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.133.2.178     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Hirano M. Clinical Examination of Voice. New York, NY: Springer Verlag; 1981.
2. Dejonckere PH, Remacle M, Fresnel-Elbaz E, Woisard V, Crevier-Buchman L, Millet B. Differentiated perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 1996;117:219-224.
3. Webb AL, Carding PN, Deary IJ, MacKenzie K, Steen N, Wilson JA. The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;261:429-434.
4. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K. Listener experience and perception of voice quality. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33:103-115.
5. 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. J Voice. 1997;11:74-80.
6. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assessment. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;108:1867-1876.
7. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K, Berke GS. Individual differences in voice quality perception. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35:512-520.
8. Dedivitis RA, Barros APB, Queija DS, et al. Interobserver perceptual analysis of smokers voice. Clin Otolaryngol. 2004;29:124-127.
9. Green DM. Auditory intensity discrimination. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR, eds. Human Psychophysics. New York, NY: Springer; 1993:13-55.
10. Moore BCJ. Frequency analysis and pitch perception. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR, eds. Human Psychophysics. New York, NY: Springer; 1993:56-115.
11. Morsomme D, Jamart J, Wery C, Giovanni A, Remacle M. Comparison between the GIRBAS scale and the acoustic and aerodynamic measures provided by EVA for the assessment of dysphonia following unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2001;53:317-325.
12. Bhuta T, Patrick L, Garnett JD. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements. J Voice. 2004;18:299-304.
13. Koenig W, Dunn HK, Lacy LY. The sound spectrograph. J Acoust Soc Am. 1946;18:19-49.
14. Truax B. Handbook for Acoustic Ecology. 2nd ed. Burnaby, British Columbia: Cambridge Street Publishing; 1999.
15. Yanagihara N. Significance of harmonic changes and noise components in hoarseness. J Speech Hear Res. 1967;10:531-541.
16. Rontal E, Rontal M, Rolnick MI. Objective evaluation of vocal pathology using voice spectrography. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1975;84:662-671.
17. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, 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). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258:77-82.
18. Titze IR. Workshop on acoustic voice analysis; summary statement. Iowa City: National Center for Voice and Speech, University of Iowa; 1995.
19. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37-46.
20. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378-382.
21. Wuyts FL, De Bodt MS, Van de Heyning PH. Is the reliability of a visual analog scale higher than an ordinal scale? an experiment with the GRBAS scale for the perceptual evaluation of dysphonia. J Voice. 1999;13:508-517.
22. de Krom G. Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37:985-1000.
23. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;104:1598-1608.
24. Chan KM, Yiu EM. The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45:111-126.
25. Revis J. Approche Phonétique de l'analyse Perceptive des Dysphonies. Marseille, France: Université de la Mé diterranée; 2004.
26. Speyer R, Wieneke G, Dejonckere PH. Documentation of progress in voice therapy: perceptual, acoustic, and laryngostroboscopic findings pretherapy and posttherapy. J Voice. 2004;18:325-340.
27. Shrivastav R, Sapienza CM. Objective measures of breathy voice quality obtained using an auditory model. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114:2217-2224.
28. Schönweiler R, Hess M, Wubbelt P, Ptok M. Novel approach to acoustical voice analysis using artificial neural networks. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2000;1:270-282.