Reproducibility of Voice Parameters: The Effect of Room Acoustics and Microphones.

INTRODUCTION: Computer analysis of voice recordings is an integral part of the evaluation and management of voice disorders. In many practices, voice samples are taken in rooms that are not sound attenuated and/or sound-proofed; further, the technology used is rarely consistent. This will likely affect the recordings, and therefore, their analyses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare various acoustic outcome measures taken from samples recorded in a sound-proofed booth to those recorded in more common clinic environments. Further, the effects from six different commonly used microphones will be compared. METHODS: Thirty-six speakers were recorded while reading a text and producing sustained vowels in a controlled acoustic environment. The collected samples were reproduced by a Head and Torso Simulator and recorded in three clinical rooms and in a sound booth using six different microphones. Newer measures (eg, Pitch Strength, cepstral peak prominence, Acoustic Voice Quality Index), as well as more traditional measures (eg Jitter, Shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio and Spectrum Tilt), were calculated from the samples collected with each microphone and within each room. RESULTS: The measures which are more robust to room acoustic differences, background noise, and microphone quality include Jitter and smooth cepstral peak prominence, followed by Shimmer, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, harmonics-to-noise ratio, Pitch Strength, and Spectrum Tilt. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of room acoustics and background noise on voice parameters appears to be stronger than the type of microphone used for the recording. Consequently, an appropriate acoustical clinical space may be more important than the quality of the microphone.

Comparison of Pitch Strength With Perceptual and Other Acoustic Metric Outcome Measures Following Medialization Laryngoplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnoses of voice disorders, as well as treatment outcomes, are often tracked using visual (eg, stroboscopic images), auditory (eg, perceptual ratings), objective (eg, from acoustic or aerodynamic signals), and patient report (eg, Voice Handicap Index and Voice-Related Quality of Life) measures. However, many of these measures are known to have low to moderate sensitivity and specificity for detecting changes in vocal characteristics, including vocal quality. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare changes in estimated pitch strength (PS) with other conventionally used acoustic measures based on the cepstral peak prominence (smoothed cepstral peak prominence, cepstral spectral index of dysphonia, and acoustic voice quality index), and clinical judgments of voice quality (GRBAS [grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain] scale) following laryngeal framework surgery. METHODS: This study involved post hoc analysis of recordings from 22 patients pretreatment and post treatment (thyroplasty and behavioral therapy). Sustained vowels and connected speech were analyzed using objective measures (PS, smoothed cepstral peak prominence, cepstral spectral index of dysphonia, and acoustic voice quality index), and these results were compared with mean auditory-perceptual ratings by expert clinicians using the GRBAS scale. RESULTS: All four acoustic measures changed significantly in the direction that usually indicates improved voice quality following treatment (P < 0.005). Grade and breathiness correlated the strongest with the acoustic measures (|r| ~ 0.7) with strain being the least correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Acoustic analysis on running speech highly correlates with judged ratings. PS is a robust, easily obtained acoustic measure of voice quality that could be useful in the clinical environment to follow treatment of voice disorders.

Pitch Strength as an Outcome Measure for Treatment of Dysphonia.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of treatment outcomes is critical for the spectrum of voice treatments (ie, surgical, behavioral, or pharmacological). Outcome measures typically include visual (eg, stroboscopic data), auditory (eg, Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice; Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain), and objective correlates of vocal fold vibratory characteristics, such as acoustic signals (eg, harmonics-to-noise ratio, cepstral peak prominence) or patient self-reported questionnaires (eg, Voice Handicap Index, Voice-Related Quality of Life). Subjective measures often show high variability, whereas most acoustic measures of voice are only valid for signals where some degree of periodicity can be assumed. However, this assumption is often invalid for dysphonic voices where signal periodicity is suspect. Furthermore, many of these measures are not useful in isolation for diagnostic purposes. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a recently developed algorithm (Auditory Sawtooth Waveform Inspired Pitch Estimator-Prime [Auditory-SWIPE']) for estimating pitch and pitch strength for dysphonic voices. Whereas fundamental frequency is a physical attribute of a signal, pitch is its psychophysical correlate. As such, the perception of pitch can extend to most signals irrespective of their periodicity. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were conducted for three groups of patients evaluated and treated for voice problems at a major voice center: (1) muscle tension dysphonia/functional dysphonia, (2) vocal fold mass(es), and (3) presbyphonia. All patients were recorded before and after surgical/behavioral treatment for voice disorders. Pitch and pitch strength for each speaker were computed with the Auditory-SWIPE' algorithm. RESULTS: Comparison of pre- and posttreatment data provides support for pitch strength as a measure of treatment outcomes for dysphonic voices.