Voice assessment: Updates on perceptual, acoustic, aerodynamic, and endoscopic imaging methods

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 211-215

  Mehta, Daryush D ^a   Hillman, Robert E ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic voice analysis; Aerodynamics of voice production; High speed endoscopic imaging; Perception of voice; Voice quality assessment

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; AIRFLOW; ALGORITHM; ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE; AUDITORY SYSTEM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ENDOSCOPY; IMAGE QUALITY; LARYNX DISORDER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PERCEPTION; PHONATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; VOCAL CORD; VOICE;

AIRWAY RESISTANCE; HUMANS; LARYNGOSCOPY; PHONATION; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PRODUCTION MEASUREMENT; VIDEO RECORDING; VOICE DISORDERS; VOICE QUALITY; VOICE TRAINING;

EID: 43549099781     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e3282fe96ce     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association: consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). Available at: http://www.asha.org/about/membership-certification/divs/div_3.htm. [Accessed 19 December 2007]
2. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assessment. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108:1867-1876.
3. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Ito M. When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122:2354-2364. This is the first study that quantifies the extent to which experimental design factors affect listener variability. See [4] for an alternative approach.
4. Shrivastav R, Sapienza CM, Nandur V. Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48:323-335.
5. Zeitels SM, Blitzer A, Hillman RE, et al. Foresight in laryngology and laryngeal surgery: a 2020 vision. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2007; 198:2-16. This special supplement proposes future directions in laryngology that could be pursued and accomplished by the year 2020.
6. Awan SN, Roy N. Toward the development of an objective index of dysphonia severity: a four-factor acoustic model. Clin Linguist Phon 2006; 20:35-49.
7. Murphy PJ. On first rahmonic amplitude in the analysis of synthesized aperiodic voice signals. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120:2896-2907.
8. Murphy PJ, Akande OO. Noise estimation in voice signals using short-term cepstral analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121:1679-1690. This study applies cepstral analysis to derive a noise-to-harmonics ratio measure for synthesized vowels with varying noise levels.
9. Zhang Y, Jiang JJ. Acoustic analyses of sustained and running voices from patients with laryngeal pathologies. J Voice 2008; 22:1-9. This article presents initial results on the use of nonlinear dynamics-based algorithms on running speech to better differentiate normal from disordered voices versus traditional perturbation analysis.
10. Chan RW, Titze IR. Dependence of phonation threshold pressure on vocal tract acoustics and vocal fold tissue mechanics. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 119:2351-2362.
11. Jiang J, Leder C, Bichler A. Estimating subglottal pressure using incomplete airflow interruption. Laryngoscope 2006; 116:89-92.
12. Baggott CD, Yuen AK, Hoffman MR, et al. Estimating subglottal pressure via airflow redirection. Laryngoscope 2007; 117:1491-1495. This study introduces a system for estimating subglottal pressure that may be easily transferred to a clinical setting.
13. Jiang JJ, Tao C. The minimum glottal airflow to initiate vocal fold oscillation. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121:2873-2881. This article introduces the phonation threshold flow parameter and demonstrates the parameter's sensitivity to simulated vocal fold properties using a mathematical model.
14. Howe MS, McGowan RS. Sound generated by aerodynamic sources near a deformable body, with application to voiced speech. J Fluid Mech 2007; 592:367-392. This article summarizes the aeroacoustic theory of sound production and presents a detailed analysis of different source mechanisms that contribute to voice.
15. McGowan RS, Howe MS. Compact Green's functions extend the acoustic theory of speech production. J Phon 2006; 35:259-270.
16. Deliyski DD, Petrushev PP, Bonilha HS, et al. Clinical implementation of laryngeal high-speed videoendoscopy: challenges and evolution. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2008; 60:33-44. This article comprehensively presents the latest results of the utility of high-speed imaging of the vocal folds, as well as new facilitative visualizations that promise to offer clinically-salient information.
17. Švec JG, Šram F, Schutte HK. Videokymography in voice disorders: what to look for? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007; 116:172-180. This article presents a systematic methodology for categorizing vocal fold kymographic data.
18. Shaw HS, Deliyski DD. Mucosal wave: a normophonic study across visualization techniques. J Voice 2008; 22:23-33. The goal of this study is to determine the variations in image-based judgments of the mucosal wave using stroboscopic and high-speed methods.
19. Yan Y, Chen X, Bless D. Automatic tracing of vocal-fold motion from high-speed digital images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2006; 53:1394-1400.
20. Yan YL, Damrose E, Bless D. Functional analysis of voice using simultaneous high-speed imaging and acoustic recordings. J Voice 2007; 21:604-616. This study exemplifies the image-analysis approach of deriving higher order measures of vocal function from high-speed imaging methods.
21. Tao C, Zhang Y, Jiang JJ. Extracting physiologically relevant parameters of vocal folds from high-speed video image series. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2007; 54:794-801. This study links asymmetric vocal fold model parameters with phonatory values derived from an excised preparation.
22. Schwarz R, Hoppe U, Schuster M, et al. Classification of unilateral vocal fold paralysis by endoscopic digital high-speed recordings and inversion of a biomechanical model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2006; 53:1099-1108.
23. Wurzbacher T, Schwarz R, Döllinger M, et al. Model-based classification of nonstationary vocal fold vibrations. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120:1012-1027.