Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) vs Praat for Assessing Euphonic Subjects: A Preliminary Study on the Gender-discriminating Power of Acoustic Analysis Software.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the discriminatory power of the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) and Praat in distinguishing the gender of euphonic adults. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. METHODS: The recordings of 100 euphonic volunteers (50 males and 50 females) producing a sustained vowel /a/ were analyzed with MDVP and Praat software. RESULTS: Both computer programs identified significant differences between male and female volunteers in absolute jitter (MDVP P < 0.00001 and Praat P < 0.00001) and in shimmer in decibel (dB) (MDVP P = 0.006 and Praat P = 0.001). Using the scale proposed by Hosmer and Lemeshow, we found no gender discrimination for shimmer in dB with either the MDVP (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC] = 0.658) or Praat (AUC = 0.682). In our series, on the other hand, MDVP absolute jitter achieved an acceptable discrimination between males and females (AUC = 0.752), and Praat absolute jitter achieved an outstanding discrimination (AUC = 0.901). The discriminatory power of Praat absolute jitter was significantly higher than that of the MDVP (P = 0.003). Absolute jitter sensitivity and specificity were also higher for Praat (83% and 80%) than for the MDVP (74% and 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Differences attributable to a subject's gender and to the software used to measure acoustic parameters should be carefully considered in both research and clinical settings. Further studies are needed to test the discriminatory power of different voice analysis programs when differentiating between normal and dysphonic voices.

Temporal bone high-resolution computed tomography in non-syndromic unilateral hearing loss in children.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to disclose possible inner ear abnormalities/pathologies by means of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the temporal bone (TBHRCT) in children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). METHODS: Retrospective review of audiological evaluation and TBHRCT in 22 children with UHL. RESULTS: Two thirds of the children showed profound hearing loss. Review of HRCT scans identified inner ear malformations/pathologies in 9 (41%) cases and a high jugular bulb (HJB), always dehiscent with the vestibular aqueduct, in another 5 (22%). Inner ear malformations included enlarged vestibular aqueduct, common cavity and cochleovestibular hypoplasia, while labyrinthine ossification was the detected pathology. In 1 child, the common cavity of the right ear was associated with congenital melanocytic naevus of the left eyelid and lipomeningocele. To the best of our knowledge, this condition has never been described. CONCLUSIONS: The aetiology of UHL may be revealed in more than half of patients by means of TBHRCT. Besides common inner ear abnormalities, TBHRCT should be evaluated carefully to rule out HJB, dehiscences, diverticulum or erosion of inner ear structures.