Adult Normative Data for the OMNI-Vocal Effort Scale (VES).

PURPOSE: To establish normative values for the OMNI-Vocal Effort Scale (VES) in healthy adults without voice complaints. Secondary objective is to determine if there are differences in perceived vocal effort across age groups and between sexes. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective data collection across groups. METHOD: A nine-item survey was administered by speech-language pathologists with specialization in voice to consenting adults 18 years or older. Participants underwent an auditory perceptual evaluation of voice and answered questions regarding age, history of voice problems, history of voice surgery, smoking history and hearing loss. Participants were instructed to rate their perceived vocal effort in conversational speech using the OMNI-VES. Multivariant analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-one participants were recruited. The majority of adults without voice complaints reported that producing conversational voice was within the "extremely easy" to "easy" range, 0-3 (92.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary data for perceived vocal effort. The OMNI-VES may be a useful tool in understanding changes in perceived vocal effort as a result of treatment for voice disorders. Further normative data are needed between sexes, across the gender spectrum, and older adult populations. Future directions include examining the magnitude of difference between numeric values on the scale and use of the scale with other dysphonic populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

Perceptions of Vocal Performance Impairment in Singers with and without Hearing Loss.

INTRODUCTION: It is well understood that hearing plays an important role in accurate vocal production. Singers in particular rely on auditory cues and auditory feedback to reproduce specific pitch contours. Therefore, even mild hearing loss may have a detrimental effect on a singer's ability to perform. This study investigates the effect of hearing loss on self-reported vocal production in singers, specifically in the domains of pitch matching, pitch maintenance, vowel production, and dynamic control as well as the effect of hearing loss on vocal handicap. METHODS: An 18-item electronic self-report survey was distributed to the members of the National Association of Teachers of Singing and to the Voice Foundation. Data collected included demographics, the Singing Voice Handicap Index-10 (SVHI-10), and a series of closed and open-ended questions. Demographic variables, variables related to the SVHI-10, and variables related to the newly introduced survey were included in a hierarchical regression analysis to determine significant relationships. RESULTS: Among 206 eligible participants, 37 individuals reported a voice problem, 58 reported hearing loss, and 19 reported concurrent hearing loss and a voice problem. Among males, there were no significant differences between hearing impaired and normal hearing singers in reported pitch matching, pitch maintenance, dynamic control, and vowel matching when those with voice problems were excluded and included. However, in females, when singers with voice problems were excluded, there was a significant difference between hearing impaired and normal hearing singers in pitch matching (P = 0.38). Additionally, when singers with voice problems were included in the female subset, significant differences emerged between the hearing impaired and normal hearing singers in areas of pitch matching (P = 0.01) and vowel matching (P = 0.02). Further, controlling for gender, when excluding voice problems, there was a significant difference between the SVHI-10 scores of normal hearing (mean = 9.03) and hearing impaired participants (mean = 11.30, P = 0.02). This difference continued to be significant when including those with voice problems (normal hearing mean = 9.97, hearing impaired mean=14.1, P <0.0001). Additionally, individuals with hearing impairments were more likely to report higher perceived vocal handicap scores as reflected on the SVHI-10 than normal hearing respondents (P = 0.002). Other factors associated with higher likelihood of SVHI-10 score include older age (P = 0.008), having a voice problem (P <0.0001), and being paid to sing within the past six months (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: When controlling for voice problems, singers with hearing impairments subjectively did not perceive that they performed less accurately on pitch matching, pitch maintenance, dynamic control, and vowel matching, yet they scored higher on the SVHI-10 indicating vocal handicap. Further study is needed to characterize the relationship between perceived and measured vocal accuracy in singers with hearing loss.

Effects of Sidetone Amplification on Vocal Function During Telecommunication.

PURPOSE: Society has become increasingly dependent on telecommunication, which has been shown to negatively impact vocal function. This study explores the use of sidetone regulation during audio-visual communication as one potential technique to alleviate the effects of telecommunication on the voice. METHOD: The speech acoustics of 18 participants with typical voices were measured during conversational tasks during three conditions of sidetone amplification: baseline (no sidetone amplification), low sidetone amplification, and high sidetone amplification. Vocal intensity, vocal quality (estimated using acoustic measures of the low-high ratio and the smoothed cepstral peak prominence), and self-perceived vocal effort were used to measure the impacts of sidetone amplification on vocal function. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, there were statistically significant decreases in vocal intensity and increases in low-high ratio in the high level of sidetone amplification condition. Changes in these measures were not significantly correlated. When asked to rank conditions based on their perceived vocal effort, participants most often ranked the high level of sidetone amplification as least effortful; however, the visual-analog ratings of vocal effort were not significantly different between conditions. The smoothed cepstral peak prominence did not change with varying levels of sidetone amplification. CONCLUSIONS: Vocal intensity decreased with high levels of sidetone amplification. High levels of sidetone amplification also resulted in increases in the low-high ratio, which were shown to be more than just a byproduct of decreased vocal intensity. The impact of sidetone amplification on vocal effort was less clear, but results suggested that participants generally decreased their vocal effort with increased levels of sidetone amplification. This was a preliminary study and future work is warranted in a population of participants with voice complaints and in a more noisy, realistic environments.

Platelet-Rich Plasma for Vocal Fold Scar: A Preliminary Report of Concept.

INTRODUCTION: Vocal fold atrophy and scar can lead to loss of normal superficial lamina propria, negatively affecting the vibratory function of the vocal fold. These changes can lead to dysphonia, vocal fatigue, decreased volume, and altered pitch. Treatment options for these conditions are limited. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of platelets, growth factors, and cytokines derived from the patient's own blood and is believed to activate tissue regeneration. The purpose of this study was to review the technical aspects of collecting PRP and injecting it into the vocal fold injection - based on our initial experience with this procedure. CASE: A patient with vocal fold scar was identified and enrolled in an ongoing prospective clinical trial study of a series of 4 monthly subepithelial vocal fold PRP injections, which was temporarily halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient underwent a single injection of autologous PRP into the left vocal fold. There were no adverse events during the study period. Subjective improvement in voice was noted at 1 month after injection with subsequent return to baseline over the next 4 months. Videostroboscopy performed on postinjection day 1 and day 7 and demonstrated no concerning exam changes. Compared to the preinjection baseline, the patient-reported voice-handicap index-10 (VHI-10) and voice catastrophization index were similar at 4 months following injection (20 to 20 and 4 to 3, respectively). Independent perceptual analysis of voice showed improvement at 4 months postinjection, compared to baseline consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice 60 to 44. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary report was part of a prospective trial investigating the use of PRP to treat vocal fold atrophy and scar. This work highlights the technical considerations for injecting PRP into the vocal fold. Planned prospective enrollment in this study will help to validate the safety and efficacy of PRP injections.

Provider and Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine Voice Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic expanded the use of telemedicine, but there is no literature exploring both patient and provider satisfaction specifically in the provision of voice therapy. This study aims to investigate patient and provider satisfaction with virtual voice therapy, its associated factors, and any correlation between the two. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Participants included 226 adults who underwent voice therapy delivered via telepractice at the USC Voice Center between April and October 2020. Patients and providers self-reported their level of satisfaction on a visual analog scale (VAS; range 0-100). Patient satisfaction was additionally measured using a previously validated Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire (TSQ; range 1-5), and a binary question about their desire to choose telemedicine over in-person therapy in the future. Three speech-language pathologists rated provider satisfaction for all 226 patients. Patient satisfaction survey was completed by 55 patients. Multivariable linear regression analyses and linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the results. RESULTS: Patient and provider mean (SD) VAS satisfaction scores were 86.8 (18.6) and 80.6 (19.7), respectively. The mean (SD) TSQ score was 4.4 (0.6). In a multivariable model, patient satisfaction levels were significantly higher for hypofunctional than for hyperfunctional dysphonia diagnoses. Forty-four (73%) patients reported they would prefer telemedicine voice therapy over in-person appointments, which was significantly correlated with internet reliability (P = 0.04). For providers, satisfaction was significantly lower for patients whose diagnosis had changed after initiation of voice therapy (Δ = -16.0 [95% CI: -28.7 to -3.2]) and for encounters with Asian patients compared to White patients (Δ = -11.6 [95% CI: -18.9 to -4.2]). Patient and provider satisfaction scores were weakly correlated (r = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that virtual voice therapy is not simply an alternative to in-person service, but rather an effective method useful beyond the current pandemic with proper diagnosis and technical support.

Linguistic Relevance and Applicability of the Spanish VHI-10 in a Population outside Spain.

INTRODUCTION: The Voice Handicap Index 10 (VHI-10) has been translated to many languages. There are substantial differences between the translation methods. Translated questionnaires without appropriate linguistic validation may not capture cultural differences or be understood by the participants in the manner intended by the original developers. This also holds true between dialects within a language. There are two versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish, both translated in Spain. Considering the cultural and dialectical differences amongst Spanish speakers, it is hypothesized that these translations may not be applicable globally. The purpose of this study was to determine the linguistic relevance and applicability of the currently available versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish amongst Spanish speakers outside of Spain. METHODS: This study used mixed methods qualitative and quantitative procedures consisting of semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of data. Sixty-nine participants met the inclusion criteria. Participants with and without a diagnosis of dysphonia were included. Demographic data collected included age, gender, cultural/dialectical background, level of education, and number of years residing in Southern California. Participants were provided the currently available translated versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish (V1 and V2). After reading both questionnaires, a semi-structured interview was conducted by a bilingual SLP. Semi-structured interview responses were coded to determine patterns of words marked as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken by the participants. RESULTS: The majority of participants marked at least one word in both versions as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken (60/69, 87.0% for V1 and 63/69, 92.3%, for V2). The two words most frequently marked as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken were "hándicap" (marked by 51/69 participants, 73.9%) and "minusvalía" (marked by 52/69 participants, 75.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis demonstrates that the majority of participants marked words as not understood/non-representative of their dialect on either V1 or V2. One question not understood or not answered could have an impact on how we interpret this patient-reported outcome measure in clinical practice. Use of currently available Spanish translations of the VHI-10 may yield unreliable results when used amongst Spanish speakers outside Spain due to dialectal and cultural differences. Future work will include validation of a voice patient-reported outcome measure that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for Spanish speakers outside Spain.