The aim of this study was to validate the Acoustic Voice Quality Index 03.01 (AVQIv3) and the Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI) in the Spanish language.
Method:
Concatenated voice samples of continuous speech (cs) and sustained vowel (sv) from 136 subjects with dysphonia and 47 vocally healthy subjects were perceptually judged for overall voice quality and breathiness severity. First, to reach a higher level of ecological validity, the proportions of cs and sv were equalized regarding the time length of 3 seconds sv part and voiced cs part, respectively. Second, concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy were verified.
Results:
A moderate reliability of overall voice quality and breathiness severity from 5 experts was used. It was found that 33 syllables as standardization of the cs part, which represents 3 seconds of voiced cs, allows the equalization of both speech tasks. A strong correlation was revealed between AVQIv3 and overall voice quality and ABI and perceived breathiness severity. Additionally, the best diagnostic outcome was identified at a threshold of 2.28 and 3.40 for AVQIv3 and ABI, respectively.
Conclusions:
The AVQIv3 and ABI showed in the Spanish language valid and robust results to quantify abnormal voice qualities regarding overall voice quality and breathiness severity.
DejonckerePH. Perceptual and laboratory assessment of dysphonia. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2000;33:677-694.
2.
DejonckerePHBradleyPClementePet 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. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258:77-82.
3.
BrincaLFBatistaAPFTavaresAIGonҫalvesICMorenoML. Use of cepstral analyses for differentiating normal from dysphonic voices: a comparative study of connected speech versus sustained vowel in European Portuguese female speakers. J Voice. 2014;28:282-286.
4.
DelgadoJLeónNMJiménezAIzquierdoLM. Análisis acústico de la voz: medidas temporales, espectrales y cepstrales en la voz normal con el Praat en una muestra de hablantes de español [Acoustic analysis of the voice: temporal, spectral and cepstral measurements in the normal voice with the Praat in a sample of Spanish speakers]. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia. 2017;7:108-127.
5.
MarynYCorthalsPVan CauwenbergePRoyNDe BodtM. Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels. J Voice. 2010;24:540-555.
6.
YiuEWorrallLLonglandJet al. Analysing vocal quality of connected speech using Kay’s Computerized Speech Lab: a preliminary finding. Clin Linguist Phon. 2000;14:295-305.
7.
MarynYDe BodtMRoyN. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders. J Commun Disord. 2010;43:161-174.
8.
BarstiesBMarynY. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Toward expanded measurement of dysphonia severity in German subjects. HNO. 2012;60:715-720.
9.
ReynoldsVBucklandABaileyJet al. Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the acoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2012;26:672.e1-672.e7.
10.
MarynYDe BodtMBarstiesBRoyN. The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:1609-1619.
11.
KankareEBarstiesBMarynYet al. A preliminary study of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in Finnish speaking population. Presented at 11th Pan European Voice Conference; August 31-September 4, 2015; Florence, Italy.
12.
BarstiesBMarynY. Der Acoustic Voice Quality Index in Deutsch: Ein Messverfahren zur allgemeinen Stimmqualität [The Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Toward expanded measurement of dysphonia severity in German subjects]. HNO. 2012;60:715-720.
13.
MarynYKimHTKimJ. Auditory-perceptual and acoustic methods in measuring dysphonia severity of Korean speech. J Voice. 2016;30:587-594.
14.
Núñez-BatallaFDíaz-FresnoEÁlvarez-FernándezACorderoGMPendásJLL. Aplicación del índice acústico de calidad vocal para la cuantificación objetiva de la severidad de la disfonía [Application of the acoustic voice quality index for objective measurement of dysphonia severity]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2017;68:204-211.
15.
HosokawaKBarstiesBIwahashiTet al. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Japanese language. J Voice. 2017;31:260.e1-260.e9.
16.
BarstiesBMarynY. The improvement of internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Am J Otolaryngol. 2015;36:647-656.
17.
HosokawaKBarsties v. LatoszekBIwahashiTet al. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index version 03.01 for the Japanese-speaking population] [published online November 15, 2017]. J Voice. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.10.003
18.
BarstiesBMarynY. External validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 with extended representativity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125:571-583.
19.
Barsties v. LatoszekBMarynYGerritEDe BodtM. The Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI): a multivariate acoustic model for breathiness. J Voice. 2017;31(4):511e11-511e27.
20.
VerdoliniKRosenCABranskiRC. Classification Manual for Voice Disorders-I. Special Interest Division 3, Voice and Voice Disorders, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2006.
21.
ShrivastavRSapienzaCM. Objective measures of breathy voice quality obtained using an auditory model. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114:2217-2224.
22.
Barsties v. LatoszekBMarynYGerritsEet al. A meta-analysis: acoustic measurement of roughness and breathiness [published online February 1, 2018]. JSLHR. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0188
23.
HochmuthSBrandTZokollMAZenkerFWardengaNKollmeierB. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol. 2012;51:536-544.
24.
Delgado-HernándezJLeón-GómezNMIzquierdo-ArteagaLMLlanos-FumeroY. Análisis cepstral de la voz normal y patológica en adultos españoles. Medida de la prominencia del pico cepstral suavizado en vocales sostenidas versus habla conectada [Cepstral analysis of normal and pathological voice in Spanish adults. Smoothed Cepstral Peak Prominence in sustained vowels versus connected speech] [published online September 1, 2017]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. doi:10.1016/j.otorri.2017.05.006.
25.
BoersmaPWeeninkD. [computer program]. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.22). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Institute of Phonetic Sciences; 2016.
26.
DeliyskiDDShawHSEvansMKVesselinovR. Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006;58:274-288.
27.
DeliyskiDDShawHSEvansMK. Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice. 2005;19:15-28.
28.
HiranoM. Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice. In: ArnoldGEWinckelFWykeBD, eds. Disorders of Human Communication 5. Clinical Examination of Voice. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag; 1981:81-84.
29.
WuytsFLDe BodtMSMolenberghsGet al. The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Hear Res. 2000;43:796-809.
30.
KreimanJGerrattBRKempsterGBErmanABerkeGS. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993;36:21-40.
31.
EverittBS. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. 2nd ed.New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
32.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
33.
FleissJL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378-382.
34.
FreyLRBotanCHFriedmanPGKrepsGL. Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1991.
35.
PortneyLGWatkinsMP. Foundations of Clinical Research, Applications to Practice. 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.
36.
DollaghanCA. The Handbook for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2007.
37.
MarynYWeeninkD. Objective dysphonia measures in the program Praat: smoothed cepstral peak prominence and acoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2015;29:35-43.
38.
UlozaVPetrauskasTPadervinskisEUlozaitėNBarstiesBMarynY. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Lithuanian language. J Voice. 2017;31:257.e1-257.e11.
