medigraphic.com
ISSN 2539-0859 (Electronic)
ISSN 0120-8411 (Print)
Asociación Colombiana de Otorrinolaringología y Cirugía de Cabeza y cuello, Maxilofacial y Estética Facial (ACORL)

2023, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta de Otorrinolaringología CCC 2023; 51 (4)

Cepstral analysis of normal and pathological voice in Colombian Spanish using the PRAAT program

Rivera-Giraldo SA, Osorio-Anaya S, Milanés-Pérez R, Amado-González SA

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 276-284
PDF size: 334.81 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Subjective auditory-perceptual measurements, GRABS (Grade, Roughness, Asthenia, Breathiness y Strain) and CAPE-V (Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice) have been the gold standard in voice evaluation. Recently, the smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS) has been imposed as the acoustic measurement, objective and more robust for dysphonia severity. Objectives: The cepstral analysis of the PRAAT program was evaluated in patients with a pathological and non-pathological voice in Colombian Spanish speakers and the standard values for the CPPS in connected language (CPPSc), compared with the perceptual analysis of the voice (GRBAS). Methods: An observational, analytical, cross-sectional, multicenter diagnostic test was performed with 120 individuals. The voice was recorded and the CPPSc was analyzed with the PRAAT program. The auditoryperceptual assessment was applied by two expert evaluators for the GRBAS scale. Results: The average age was 43.3 ± 18.1 years, 64.2% were women. The mean CPPSc in the dysphonic group was 6.40 dB, while in the group of normophonic individuals it was 8.54 dB, with significant differences between both groups (p=0.000). Sensitivity of 83.6% and specificity of 96.2%; for pathological voice was established in patients with CPPSc values less than 7.38 dB. A high correlation was found in the CPPSc value with the severity of dysphonia. Conclusions: The value of CPPSc through the Praat program is an efficient measure, due to its high validity, low cost and easy application to objectively evaluate dysphonia and its severity


REFERENCES

  1. Cohen SM. Self-reported impact of dysphonia in a primarycare population: an epidemiological study. Laryngoscope. 2010;120(10):2022-32. doi: 10.1002/lary.21058

  2. Roy N, Merrill RM, Thibeault S, Parsa RA, Gray SD, SmithEM. Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the generalpopulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(2):281-93. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/023)

  3. Raju N, Priya TL, Mathini S, Preethi P. Normal versuspathology voice-an analysis. ICCCA. 2012;1–4. doi: 10.1109/ICCCA.2012.6179188

  4. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, et al. A basic protocol for functionalassessment of voice pathology, especially for investigatingthe efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating newassessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committeeon Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS).Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258(2):77-82. doi: 10.1007/s004050000299

  5. Delgado-Hernández J, León-Gómez NM, Izquierdo-ArteagaLM, Llanos-Fumero Y. Cepstral analysis of normal andpathological voice in Spanish adults. Smoothed cepstral peakprominence in sustained vowels versus connected speech.Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018;69(3):134-40. doi:10.1016/j.otorri.2017.05.006

  6. Brockmann-Bauser M, Drinnan MJ. Routine acousticvoice analysis: time to think again? Curr Opin OtolaryngolHead Neck Surg. 2011;19(3):165-70. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32834575fe

  7. Gunjawate DR, Ravi R, Bellur R. Acoustic Analysis of Voicein Singers: A Systematic Review. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2018;61(1):40-51. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-17-0145

  8. Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Garellek M. Comparing Measuresof Voice Quality From Sustained Phonation and ContinuousSpeech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016;59(5):994-1001. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-15-0307

  9. Awan SN, Solomon NP, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A.Spectral-cepstral estimation of dysphonia severity: externalvalidation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122(1):40-8. doi:

  10. 10.1177/00034894131220010810. Noll AM. Cepstrum pitch determination. J Acoust Soc Am.1967;41(2):293-309. doi: 10.1121/1.1910339

  11. Heman-Ackah YD, Sataloff RT, Laureyns G, Lurie D, MichaelDD, Heuer R, et al. Quantifying the cepstral peak prominence,a measure of dysphonia. J Voice. 2014;28(6):783-8. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.05.005

  12. Sauder C, Bretl M, Eadie T. Predicting Voice Disorder StatusFrom Smoothed Measures of Cepstral Peak Prominence UsingPraat and Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV).J Voice. 2017;31(5):557-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.01.006

  13. Maryn Y, Roy N, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P, CorthalsP. Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a metaanalysis.J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126(5):2619-34. doi:10.1121/1.3224706

  14. Fraile R, Godino-Llorente JI. Cepstral peak prominence: Acomprehensive analysis. Biomed Signal Process Control.2014;14(1):42-54. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2014.07.001

  15. Peterson EA, Roy N, Awan SN, Merrill RM, Banks R, TannerK. Toward validation of the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia(CSID) as an objective treatment outcomes measure. J Voice.2013;27(4):401-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.04.002

  16. Alharbi GG, Cannito MP, Buder EH, Awan SN. Spectral/Cepstral Analyses of Phonation in Parkinson’s Disease beforeand after Voice Treatment: A Preliminary Study. Folia PhoniatrLogop. 2019;71(5-6):275-85. doi: 10.1159/000495837

  17. Schwartz SR, Cohen SM, Dailey SH, Rosenfeld RM, DeutschES, Gillespie MB, et al. Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness(dysphonia). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141(3 Suppl2):S1-S31. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.06.744

  18. Núñez-Batalla F, Cartón-Corona N, Vasile G, García-CaboP, Fernández-Vañes L, Llorente-Pendás JL. Validation ofthe measures of cepstral peak prominence as a measureof dysphonia severity in Spanish-speaking subjects. ActaOtorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2019;70(4):222-28. doi:10.1016/j.otorri.2018.04.008

  19. Hasanvand A, Salehi A, Ebrahimipour M. A Cepstral Analysisof Normal and Pathologic Voice Qualities in Iranian Adults: AComparative Study. J Voice. 2017;31(4):508.e17-508.e23. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.017

  20. Lee Y, Kim G, Kwon S. The Usefulness of Auditory PerceptualAssessment and Acoustic Analysis for Classifying theVoice Severity. J Voice. 2020;34(6):884-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.04.013

  21. Maryn Y, Weenink D. Objective dysphonia measures in theprogram Praat: smoothed cepstral peak prominence andacoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2015;29(1):35-43. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.06.015

  22. van Leer E, Pfister RC, Zhou X. An iOS-based Cepstral PeakProminence Application: Feasibility for Patient Practice ofResonant Voice. J Voice. 2017;31(1):131.e9-131.e16. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.11.022




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com