Acoustic Perturbation Measures Improve with Increasing Vocal Intensity in Individuals With and Without Voice Disorders

Overview

Journal J Voice

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2017 May 23

PMID 28528786

Citations 14

Authors

M Brockmann-Bauser

J E Bohlender

D D Mehta

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: In vocally healthy children and adults, speaking voice loudness differences can significantly confound acoustic perturbation measurements. This study examines the effects of voice sound pressure level (SPL) on jitter, shimmer, and harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) in adults with voice disorders and a control group with normal vocal status.

Study Design: This is a matched case-control study.

Methods: We assessed 58 adult female voice patients matched according to approximate age and occupation with 58 vocally healthy women. Diagnoses included vocal fold nodules (n = 39, 67.2%), polyps (n = 5, 8.6%), and muscle tension dysphonia (n = 14, 24.1%). All participants sustained the vowel /a/ at soft, comfortable, and loud phonation levels. Acoustic voice SPL, jitter, shimmer, and HNR were computed using Praat. The effects of loudness condition, voice SPL, pathology, differential diagnosis, age, and professional voice use level on acoustic perturbation measures were assessed using linear mixed models and Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Results: In both patient and normative control groups, increasing voice SPL correlated significantly (P < 0.001) with decreased jitter and shimmer, and increased HNR. Voice pathology and differential diagnosis were not linked to systematically higher jitter and shimmer. HNR levels, however, were statistically higher in the patient group than in the control group at comfortable phonation levels. Professional voice use level had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on jitter, shimmer, and HNR.

Conclusions: The clinical value of acoustic jitter, shimmer, and HNR may be limited if speaking voice SPL and professional voice use level effects are not controlled for. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether perturbation measures are useful clinical outcome metrics when controlling for these effects.

Citing Articles

Effect of Hearing Aids on Phonation and Perceived Voice Qualities.

Hengen J, Hammarstrom I, Stenfelt S Trends Hear. 2025; 29:23312165251322064.

PMID: 40025960 PMC: 11873921. DOI: 10.1177/23312165251322064.

The Rapidly Evolving Scenario of Acoustic Voice Analysis in Otolaryngology.

Fantini M, Ciravegna G, Koudounas A, Cerquitelli T, Baralis E, Succo G Cureus. 2024; 16(11):e73491.

PMID: 39669823 PMC: 11635181. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.73491.

Investigation of Acoustic Voice Characteristics of Individuals Diagnosed with Muscle Tension Dysphonia.

Barmak E, Altan E, Soylemez D, Tatar E Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024; 62(2):58-65.

PMID: 39463120 PMC: 11572337. DOI: 10.4274/tao.2024.2024-3-15.

DIFFERENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SPECTRO-TEMPORAL AND VOCAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AUDITORY PSEUDOWORDS TO MULTIPLE SOUND-SYMBOLIC MAPPINGS.

Lacey S, Matthews K, Hoffmann A, Sathian K, Nygaard L bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39282266 PMC: 11398405. DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.03.610973.

Validation of the Acoustic Breathiness Index in Speakers of Finnish Language.

Kankare E, Laukkanen A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(24).

PMID: 38137676 PMC: 10743974. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12247607.

References

Cnaan A, Laird N, Slasor P . Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data. Stat Med. 1997; 16(20):2349-80. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19971030)16:20<2349::aid-sim667>3.0.co;2-e. View

Wuyts F, De Bodt M, Molenberghs G, Remacle M, Heylen L, Millet B . The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43(3):796-809. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4303.796. View

Brockmann-Bauser M, Beyer D, Bohlender J . Reliable acoustic measurements in children between 5;0 and 9;11 years: Gender, age, height and weight effects on fundamental frequency, jitter and shimmer in phonations without and with controlled voice SPL. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 79(12):2035-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.09.005. View

Kilic M, Ogut F, Dursun G, Okur E, Yildirim I, Midilli R . The effects of vowels on voice perturbation measures. J Voice. 2004; 18(3):318-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.09.007. View

Cohen W, Wynne D, Kubba H, McCartney E . Development of a minimum protocol for assessment in the paediatric voice clinic. Part 1: evaluating vocal function. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2011; 37(1):33-8. DOI: 10.3109/14015439.2011.638670. View

Cohen W, Wardrop A, Wynne D, Kubba H, McCartney E . Development of a minimum protocol for assessment in the paediatric voice clinic. Part 2: subjective measurement of symptoms of voice disorder. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2011; 37(1):39-44. DOI: 10.3109/14015439.2011.638671. View

Brockmann-Bauser M, Beyer D, Bohlender J . Clinical relevance of speaking voice intensity effects on acoustic jitter and shimmer in children between 5;0 and 9;11 years. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 78(12):2121-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.09.020. View

Barsties V Latoszek B, Maryn Y, Gerrits E, De Bodt M . The Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI): A Multivariate Acoustic Model for Breathiness. J Voice. 2017; 31(4):511.e11-511.e27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.11.017. View

Uloza V, Petrauskas T, Padervinskis E, Ulozaite N, Barsties B, Maryn Y . Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Lithuanian Language. J Voice. 2016; 31(2):257.e1-257.e11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.06.002. View

10.

Sulter A, Schutte H, Miller D . Standardized laryngeal videostroboscopic rating: differences between untrained and trained male and female subjects, and effects of varying sound intensity, fundamental frequency, and age. J Voice. 1996; 10(2):175-89. DOI: 10.1016/s0892-1997(96)80045-2. View

11.

Rothman H, Brown Jr W, Sapienza C, Morris R . Acoustic analyses of trained singers perceptually identified from speaking samples. J Voice. 2002; 15(1):25-35. DOI: 10.1016/S0892-1997(01)00004-2. View

12.

Lortie C, Rivard J, Thibeault M, Tremblay P . The Moderating Effect of Frequent Singing on Voice Aging. J Voice. 2016; 31(1):112.e1-112.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.02.015. View

13.

Blomgren M, Chen Y, Ng M, Gilbert H . Acoustic, aerodynamic, physiologic, and perceptual properties of modal and vocal fry registers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103(5 Pt 1):2649-58. DOI: 10.1121/1.422785. View

14.

Brown Jr W, Morris R, Murry T . Comfortable effort level revisited. J Voice. 1996; 10(3):299-305. DOI: 10.1016/s0892-1997(96)80011-7. View

15.

Brockmann M, Drinnan M, Storck C, Carding P . Reliable jitter and shimmer measurements in voice clinics: the relevance of vowel, gender, vocal intensity, and fundamental frequency effects in a typical clinical task. J Voice. 2010; 25(1):44-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.07.002. View

16.

Brown Jr W, Shrivastav R . Comfortable effort level in young children's speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2007; 59(5):227-33. DOI: 10.1159/000104460. View

17.

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. DOI: 10.1177/0003489416636131. View

18.

Gelfer M . Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel selection: effects on measures of phonatory stability. J Speech Hear Res. 1995; 38(6):1189-98. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3806.1189. View

19.

Tay E, Phyland D, Oates J . The effect of vocal function exercises on the voices of aging community choral singers. J Voice. 2012; 26(5):672.e19-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.12.014. View

20.

Ramig L, RINGEL R . Effects of physiological aging on selected acoustic characteristics of voice. J Speech Hear Res. 1983; 26(1):22-30. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2601.22. View