CoDAS
http://www.codas.periodikos.com.br/article/doipath/10.1590/2317-1782/20182018175
CoDAS
Artigo Original

Cepstral measures in the assessment of severity of voice disorders

Medidas cepstrais na avaliação da intensidade do desvio vocal

Leonardo Wanderley Lopes, Estevão Silvestre da Silva Sousa, Allan Carlos França da Silva, Itacely Marinho da Silva, Maxsuel Avelino Alves de Paiva, Vinícius Jefferson Dias Vieira, Anna Alice Almeida.

Downloads: 0
Views: 27

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze whether there is an association between the presence, intensity and type of voice disorder and the cepstral measures in samples of individuals with voice complaints.

Methods: We used 376 vowel /Ɛ/ samples from individuals of both genders that had voice complaints. An analogue-visual scale was used for the auditory-perceptual analysis of voices regarding the overall grade of dysphonia (G) and the grades of roughness (R), breathiness (B), and strain (S), including a determination of voice quality (rough, breathy or strained). Measures related to cepstral peak prominence smoothed (CPPS) and spectral decline of vocal samples were extracted.

Results: There were differences in the CPPS values between the groups with or without voice disorders as well as between the different intensities and types of voice disorder. CPPS values were lower because of the presence and intensity of voice disorders. The CPPS values differentiated the following voices: rough x breathy, rough x strained, and breathy x strained. The spectral decline only differentiated breathy x strained voices. CPPS correlated positively and strongly with G and B; moderately and negatively with R, and negatively and weakly with S. The spectral decline had a moderate positive correlation with S and a weak negative correlation with B.

Conclusion: There is association between voice disorder, G, predominant voice quality, and CPPS. In particular, G is strongly correlated with CPPS. Spectral decline is associated only with the parameters B and S.

Keywords

Acoustics; Voice Quality; Voice Disorder; Voice; Speech-Language Pathology.

Resumo

Objetivo: Analisar se existe associação entre a presença, a intensidade e o tipo de desvio vocal e as medidas cepstrais em amostras de indivíduos com queixa vocal.

Método: Foram utilizadas 376 amostras da vogal /ε/ de indivíduos de ambos os gêneros, com queixa vocal. Utilizou-se uma escala analógico-visual para análise perceptivo-auditiva das vozes quanto à intensidade do desvio vocal (GG), graus de rugosidade (GR), soprosidade (GS) e tensão (GT), incluindo-se a determinação da qualidade vocal predominante (rugosa, soprosa ou tensa). Foram extraídas as medidas relacionadas ao Cepstral Peak Prominence-Smoothed (CPPS) e o declínio espectral das amostras vocais.

Resultados: Houve diferença dos valores do CPPS entre os grupos com e sem desvio vocal, assim como entre as diferentes intensidades e tipos de desvio vocal. Os valores do CPPS foram mais reduzidos em função da presença e intensidade do desvio vocal. Os valores do CPPS diferenciaram vozes rugosas x soprosas, rugosas x tensas e soprosas x tensas. O declínio espectral apenas diferenciou vozes soprosas x tensas. O CPPS se correlacionou de modo positivo e forte com os GG e GS, de modo negativo moderado com o GR, e de forma negativa fraca com o GT. O declínio espectral apresentou correlação positiva moderada com o GT e correlação negativa fraca com o GS.

Conclusão: Existe associação entre a presença de desvio vocal, o GG, a qualidade vocal predominante e o CPPS. De modo especial, o GG é fortemente correlacionado ao CPPS. O declínio espectral está associado apenas aos parâmetros de soprosidade e tensão.

Palavras-chave

Acústica; Qualidade Vocal; Distúrbio de Voz; Voz; Fonoaudiologia.

Referências

1. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, 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. 2001;258(2):77-82. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s004050000299. PMid:11307610.

2. Hunter EJ, Titze IR. Quantifying vocal fatigue recovery: dynamic vocal recovery trajectories after a vocal loading exercise. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118(6):449-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000348940911800608. PMid:19663377.

3. Awan SN, Roy N, Jetté ME, Meltzner GS, Hillman RE. Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V. Clin Linguist Phon. 2010;24(9):742-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2010.492446. PMid:20687828.

4. Awan SN, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A, Solomon NP. Tracking voice change after thyroidectomy: application of spectral/cepstral analyses. Clin Linguist Phon. 2011;25(4):302-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2010.5356 46. PMid:21158501.

5. Uloza V, Verikas A, Bacauskiene M, Gelzinis A, Pribuisiene R, Kaseta M, et al. Categorizing normal and pathological voices: automated and perceptual categorization. J Voice. 2010;25(6):700-8. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.04.009. PMid:20579842.

6. Barsties B, De Bodt M. Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-theart. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(3):183-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. anl.2014.11.001. PMid:25440411.

7. Lopes LW, Alves GAS, Melo LM. Evidência de conteúdo de um protocolo de análise espectrográfica. Rev CEFAC. 2017;19(4):510-28. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/1982-021620171942917.

8. Lopes LW, Cavalcante DP, Costa PO. Intensidade do desvio vocal: integração de dados perceptivo-auditivos e acústicos em pacientes disfônicos. CoDAS. 2014;26(5):382-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20142013033. PMid:25388071.

9. Godino-Llorente JI, Osma-Ruiz V, Sáenz-Lechón N, Gómez-Vilda P, Blanco-Velasco M, Cruz-Roldán F. The effectiveness of the glottal to noise excitation ratio for the screening of voice disorders. J Voice. 2010;24(1):47- 56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.04.006. PMid:19135854.

10. Awan SN, Roy N. Outcomes measurement in voice disorders: application of an acoustic index of dysphonia severity. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(2):482-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/08-0034). PMid:19339702.

11. Dejonckere PH, Wieneke GH. Cepstral of normal and pathological voices: correlation with acoustic, aerodynamic and perceptual data. In: Ball MJ & Duckworth M. editors. Advances in clinical phonetics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1996. p. 217-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sspcl.6.13dej.

12. Awan SN, Roy N, Dromey C. Estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech: application of a multi-parameter spectral/cepstral model. Clin Linguist Phon. 2009;23(11):825-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699200903242988. PMid:19891523.

13. Wolfe VI, Martin DP, Palmer CI. Perception of dysphonic voice quality by naıve listeners. J Speech Hear Res. 2000;43(3):697-705. http://dx.doi. org/10.1044/jslhr.4303.697. PMid:10877439.

14. Maryn Y, Weenink D. Objective dysphonia measures in the program Praat: smoothed cepstral peak prominence and acoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2015;29(1):35-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.06.015. PMid:25499526.

15. Yamasaki R, Madazio G, Leão SHS, Padovani M, Azevedo R, Behlau M. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of normal and dysphonic voices using the voice deviation scale. J Voice. 2017;31(1):67-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jvoice.2016.01.004. PMid:26873420.

16. Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18(2):124- 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017). PMid:18930908.

17. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85(3):257-68. PMid:15733050.

18. Dancey C, Reidy J. Estatística sem matemática para psicologia: usando SPSS para Windows. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2006. 

19. Brockmann-Bauser M, Drinnan MJ. Routine acoustic voice analysis: time to think again? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;19(3):165- 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e32834575fe. PMid:21483265.

20. Awan SN, Roy N, Zhang D, Cohen SM. Validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID) as a screening tool for voice disorders: development of clinical cutoff scores. J Voice. 2015;30(2):1-15. PMid:26361215.

21. McAllister A, Sederholm E, Ternström S, Sundberg J. Perturbation and hoarseness: a pliot study of six children’s voices. J Voice. 1996;10(3):252- 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(96)80006-3. PMid:8865096.

22. Watts CR, Awan SN. An examination of variations in the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia across a single breath group in connected speech. J Voice. 2015;29(1):26-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.04.012. PMid:25108589.

23. Awan SN, Solomon NP, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A. Spectral-Cepstral estimation of dysphonia severity: external validation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122(1):40-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000348941312200108. PMid:23472315.

24. Awan SN, Roy N. Acoustic prediction of voice type in women with functional dysphonia. J Voice. 2005;19(2):268-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jvoice.2004.03.005. PMid:15907441.

25. Barsties B, Maryn Y. External validation of the acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 with extended representativity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125(7):571-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003489416636131. PMid:26951063.

26. Lowell SY, Kelley RT, Awan SN, Colton RH, Chan NH. Spectraland cepstral-based acoustic features of dysphonic, strained voice quality. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(8):539-48. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/000348941212100808. PMid:22953661.

27. Watts CR, Awan SN. Use of spectral/cepstral analyses for differentiating normal from hypofunctional voices in sustained vowel and continuous speech contexts. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1525-37. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0209). PMid:22180020.

28. Awan SN, Krauss AR, Herbst CT. An examination of the relationship between electroglottographic contact quotient, electroglottographic decontacting phase profile, and acoustical spectral moments. J Voice. 2014;29(5):519- 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.10.016. PMid:25795367.

29. Van Houtte E, Van Lierde K, Claeys S. Pathophysiology and treatment of muscle tension dysphonia: a review of the current knowledge. J Voice. 2011;25(2):202-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.10.009. PMid:20400263.


Submetido em:
24/07/2018

Aceito em:
24/11/2018

5d58b70d0e8825e8457157ae codas Articles

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections