The Relationship Between Perceptual Evaluation and Objective Multiparametric Evaluation of Dysphonia Severity

Journal of Voice

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 138-145

  Hakkesteegt, Marieke M ^a   Brocaar, Michael P ^a   Wieringa, Marjan H ^a   Feenstra, Louw ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Acoustic measures; Dysphonia severity index; Perceptual evaluation; Voice disorders; Voice quality

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DYSPHONIA; DYSPHONIA SEVERITY INDEX; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VOCAL CORD PARALYSIS; VOICE;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LARYNGEAL NEOPLASMS; MALE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCAL CORDS; VOICE DISORDERS; VOICE QUALITY;

EID: 39449089155     PISSN: 08921997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Dejonckere P.H., 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 258 (2001) 77-82
2. De Bodt M.S., Wuyts F.L., Van de Heyning P.H., and Croux C. Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. J Voice 11 (1997) 74-80
3. Hirano M. Clinical Examination of Voice (1981), Springer, Wien; New York
4. Dejonckere P.H., Remacle M., Fresnel-Elbaz E., Woisard V., Crevier L., and Millet B. Reliability and clinical relevance of perceptual evaluation of pathological voices. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 119 (1998) 247-248
5. Webb A.L., Carding P.N., Deary I.J., MacKenzie K., Steen N., and Wilson J.A. The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 261 (2004) 429-434 Epub 2003 Nov
6. Kreiman J., and Gerratt B.R. Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality. J Acoust Soc Am 104 3 Pt 1 (1998) 1598-1608
7. Dejonckere P.H., Obbens C., de Moor G.M., and Wieneke G.H. Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance. Folia Phoniatr (Basel) 45 (1993) 76-83
8. Hartl D.A., Hans S., Vaissiere J., and Brasnu D.A. Objective acoustic and aerodynamic measures of breathiness in paralytic dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 260 (2003) 175-182
9. Ma E.P., and Yiu E.M. Multiparametric evaluation of dysphonic severity. J Voice 20 (2006) 380-390 Epub 2005 Sep 26
10. Dejonckere P.H., and Lebacq J. Acoustic, perceptual, aerodynamic and anatomical correlations in voice pathology. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 58 (1996) 326-332
11. Rabinov C.R., Kreiman J., Gerratt B.R., and Bielamowicz S. Comparing reliability of perceptual ratings of roughness and acoustic measure of jitter. J Speech Hear Res 38 (1995) 26-32
12. Giovanni A., Revis J., and Triglia J.M. Objective aerodynamic and acoustic measurement of voice improvement after phonosurgery. Laryngoscope 109 (1999) 656-660
13. Morsomme D., Jamart J., Wery C., Giovanni A., and 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 53 (2001) 317-325
14. Heman-Ackah Y.D., Michael D.D., and Goding Jr. G.S. The relationship between cepstral peak prominence and selected parameters of dysphonia. J Voice 16 (2002) 20-27
15. Heman-Ackah Y.D., Heuer R.J., Michael D.D., et al. Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112 (2003) 324-333
16. Klein S., Piccirillo J.F., and Painter C. Student Research Award 1999: comparative contrast of voice measurements. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123 (2000) 164-169
17. Michaelis D., Frohlich M., and Strube H.W. Selection and combination of acoustic features for the description of pathologic voices. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (1998) 1628-1639
18. Piccirillo J.F., Painter C., Fuller D., and Fredrickson J.M. Multivariate analysis of objective vocal function. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107 (1998) 107-112
19. Piccirillo J.F., Painter C., Fuller D., Haiduk A., and Fredrickson J.M. Assessment of two objective voice function indices. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107 5 Pt 1 (1998) 396-400
20. Yu P., Ouaknine M., Revis J., and Giovanni A. Objective voice analysis for dysphonic patients: a multiparametric protocol including acoustic and aerodynamic measurements. J Voice 15 (2001) 529-542
21. Yu P., Revis J., Wuyts F.L., Zanaret M., and Giovanni A. Correlation of instrumental voice evaluation with perceptual voice analysis using a modified visual analog scale. Folia Phoniatr Logop 54 (2002) 271-281
22. Wuyts F.L., De Bodt M.S., Molenberghs G., et al. The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43 (2000) 796-809
23. Schutte H.K., and Seidner W. Recommendation by the Union of European Phoniatricians (UEP): standardizing voice area measurement/phonetography. Folia Phoniatr (Basel) 35 (1983) 286-288
24. Hakkesteegt M.M., Brocaar M.P., Wieringa M.H., and Feenstra L. Influence of age and gender on the dysphonia severity index. A study of normative values. Folia Phoniatr Logop 58 (2006) 264-273