CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Voice and Speech DisordersPhonetics and Phonology ResearchRespiratory and Cough-Related Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Multiparameter Voice Assessment in Dysphonics: Correlation Between Objective and Perceptual Parameters

Narasimhan, SV, Rashmi, Rajesh·2022·Journal of Voice
DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Perceptual assessment and objective measures of voice provide a quantifiable tool for determining the degree of glottal closure, thus helping to distinguish dysphonic voices from normal voices. The correlation between the perceptual and objective parameters of voice in dysphonic can enable the voice pathologist to be more effective in differentiating the normal voices from dysphonic voices. However, only a few studies have investigated the correlation between these measures. Objective To document the differences in the perceptual and objective parameters of voice in participants with dysphonia and normal controls and to investigate the correlation between the perceptual and objective parameters of voice among participants with dysphonia. Study design This investigation deployed standard group comparison and a retrospective study. Methods Two groups of participants were included in the study. Participants in group 1 were diagnosed as having a voice disorder secondary to organic pathologies and group 2 participants had a clinically normal voice. Phonation samples of all the participants were collected and perceptual analysis was carried out using the GRBAS rating scale. As part of the objective measures, acoustic and cepstral measures were extracted from the phonation samples. Results The analysis of the results revealed significant differences in perceptual ratings between the normal (control) and dysphonic groups. The mean values of all the objective measures of voice presented significant differences between participants of both groups. The perceptual ratings of grade, breathiness, and roughness showed better correlations with the cepstral measures than with the time-based acoustic measures. Conclusions Further foraging research on the correlation between perceptual and objective measures of voice in various degrees of dysphonia will improve reliability while discriminating and quantifying hoarse, harsh and breathy voices from modal voices.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.009

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 38

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Van Den Berg, 1958, Myoelastic-aerodynamic theory of voice production, J Speech Hear Res, 1, 227, 10.1044/jshr.0103.227 · DOI
  2. Sodersten, 1990, Glottal closure and perceived breathiness during phonation in normally speaking subjects, J Speech Hear Res, 33, 601, 10.1044/jshr.3303.601 · DOI
  3. Anniko, 2010, Disorders: Classification, Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 555
  4. Hirano, 1974, Morphological structure of the vocal cord as a vibrator and its variations, Folia PhoniatrLogop, 26, 89, 10.1159/000263771 · DOI
  5. Van Lierde, 2007, erm outcome of hyperfunctional voice disorders based on a multiparameter approach, J Voice, 21, 179, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.11.002 · DOI
  6. Narasimhan, 2017, Spectral measures of hoarseness in persons with hyperfunctional voice disorder, J Voice, 31, 57, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.03.005 · DOI
  7. Hillman, 1989, Objective assessment of vocal hyperfunction: an experimental framework and initial results, J Speech Hear Res, 32, 373, 10.1044/jshr.3202.373 · DOI
  8. Morrison, 1983, Muscular tension dysphonia, J Otolaryngol, 12, 302
  9. Eadie, 2006, The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners’ judgments of dysphonic voice, J Voice, 20, 527, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.08.007 · DOI
  10. Eadie, 2011, Does knowledge of medical diagnosis bias auditory-perceptual judgments of dysphonia?, J Voice, 25, 420, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.12.009 · DOI
  11. Shrivastav, 2003, The use of an auditory model in predicting perceptual ratings of breathy voice quality, J Voice, 17, 502, 10.1067/S0892-1997(03)00077-8 · DOI
  12. Shrivastav, 2005, Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales, J Speech Lang Hear Res, 48, 323, 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/022) · DOI
  13. Oates, 2009, Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality, Folia PhoniatrLogop, 61, 49, 10.1159/000200768 · DOI
  14. Dejonckere, 1993, Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance, Folia Phoniatr (Basel), 45, 76, 10.1159/000266220 · DOI
  15. Nemr, 2012, GRBAS and cape-V scales: High reliability and consensus when applied at different times, J Voice, 26, 812.e17, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2012.03.005 · DOI
  16. Webb, 2004, The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia, Eur Arch Oto-Rhinolaryngol, 261, 429
  17. Carding, 2009, Measuring voice outcomes: state of the science review, J Laryngol Otol, 123, 823, 10.1017/S0022215109005398 · DOI
  18. Krieman, 1992, Individual differences in voice quality perception, J Speech Hear Res, 35, 512, 10.1044/jshr.3503.512 · DOI
  19. Hammarberg, 1986, Acoustic and perceptual analysis of vocal dysfunction, J Phon, 14, 533, 10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30704-1 · DOI
  20. Koike, 1976, Acoustical characteristics of normal and pathological voices, Speech Lang Adv basic Res Pract, 1, 271
  21. Askenfelt, 1986, Speech waveform perturbation analysis: a perceptual-acoustical comparison of seven measures, J Speech Hear Res, 29, 50, 10.1044/jshr.2901.50 · DOI
  22. Hill, 1990, A comparison of four clinical techniques in the analysis of phonation, J Voice, 4, 198, 10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80014-1 · DOI
  23. Hillman, 1989, Objective assessment of vocal hyperfunction: an experimental framework and initial results, J Speech Hear Res, 32, 373, 10.1044/jshr.3202.373 · DOI
  24. Ludlow, 2005, The validity of using phonatory jitter to detect laryngeal pathology, J Acoust Soc Am, 75, 10.1121/1.2021673 · DOI
  25. Wolfe, 1997, Acoustic correlates of dysphonia: type and severity, J Commun Disord, 30, 403, 10.1016/S0021-9924(96)00112-8 · DOI
  26. Lowell, 2011, Spectral- and cepstral-based measures during continuous speech: Capacity to distinguish dysphonia and consistency within a speaker, J Voice, 25, e223, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.06.007 · DOI
  27. Hillenbrand, 1996, Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: dysphonic voices and continuous speech, J Speech Hear Res, 39, 311, 10.1044/jshr.3902.311 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hillenbrand, 1994, Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality, J Speech Hear Res, 37, 769, 10.1044/jshr.3704.769 · DOI
  29. Balasubramanium, 2015, Cepstral characteristics of voice in Indian female classical carnaticsingers, J Voice, 29, 693, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.01.002 · DOI
  30. Heman-Ackah, 2003, Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia, Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 112, 324, 10.1177/000348940311200406 · DOI
  31. Heman-Ackah, 2002, The relationship between cepstralpeak prominence and selected parameters of dysphonia, J Voice, 16, 20, 10.1016/S0892-1997(02)00067-X · DOI
  32. Maryn, 2009, Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a metaanalaysis, J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 2619, 10.1121/1.3224706 · DOI
  33. Awan, 2005, Acoustic prediction of voice type in women with functional dysphonia, J Voice, 19, 268, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.03.005 · DOI
  34. Jannetts, 2014, Cepstral analysis of hypokinetic and ataxic voices: correlations with perceptual and other acoustic measures, J Voice, 28, 1, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.01.013 · DOI
  35. Niebudek-Bogusz, 2013, Comparision of cepstral coefficients to other voice evaluation parameters in patients with ocuupational dysphonia, Med Pr, 64, 805
  36. Balasubramanium, 2010, Cepstral analysis of voice in persons with vocal nodules, J Voice, 24, 651, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.07.008 · DOI
  37. Balasubramanium, 2011, Cepstral analysis of voice in unilateral adductor vocal fold palsy, J Voice, 25, 326, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.12.010 · DOI
  38. Delgado-Hernandez, 2017, al analysis of normal and pathological voice in Spanish adults.Smoothed cepstral peak prominence in sustained vowels versus connected speech, Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp
  39. Park, 2019, Study for correlation between objective and subjective voice parameters in patients with dysphonia, J Korean Soc Laryngol Phoniatr Logop, 30, 118, 10.22469/jkslp.2019.30.2.118 · DOI
  40. Awan, 2012, Effects of vocal intensity and vowel type on cepstral analysis of voice, J Voice, 26, 2, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.12.001 · DOI
  41. Horii, 1980, Vocal shimmer in sustained phonation, J Speech Hear Res, 23, 202, 10.1044/jshr.2301.202 · DOI
  42. AkifKiliç, 2004, The effects of vowels on voice perturbation measures, J Voice, 18, 318, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.09.007 · DOI
  43. Gelfer, 1995, Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel selection: effects on measures of phonatory stability, J Speech Hear Res, 38, 1189, 10.1044/jshr.3806.1189 · DOI
  44. Horii, 1982, Jitter and shimmer differences among sustained vowel phonations, J Speech Hear Res, 25, 12, 10.1044/jshr.2501.12 · DOI
  45. Kreiman, 1993, Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research, J Speech Hear Res, 36, 21, 10.1044/jshr.3601.21 · DOI
  46. Gerratt, 1993, Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments, J Speech Hear Res, 36, 14, 10.1044/jshr.3601.14 · DOI
  47. Awan, 2009, Estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech: application of a multi-parameter spectralcepstral model estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech, Clin Linguist Phonetics, 23, 825, 10.3109/02699200903242988 · DOI
  48. Wuyts, 1999, Is the reliability of a visual analog scale higher than an ordinal scale? An experiment with the GRBAS scale for the perceptual evaluation of dysphonia, J Voice, 13, 508, 10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80006-X · DOI
  49. Dejonckere, 2001, 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 Laryngolo, Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngology, 258, 77, 10.1007/s004050000299 · DOI
  50. Teixeira, 2015, Acoustic analysis of vocal dysphonia., Procedia Comput Sci, 64, 466, 10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.544 · DOI
  51. Yumoto, 1982, Harmonics to noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness, J Acoust Soc Am, 71, 1544, 10.1121/1.387808 · DOI
  52. Jiang, 2009, Objective acoustic analysis of pathological voices from patients with vocal nodules and polyps, Folia Phoniatr Logop, 61, 342, 10.1159/000252851 · DOI
  53. Peppard, 1988, Comparison of young adult singers and nonsingers with vocal nodules, J Voice, 2, 250, 10.1016/S0892-1997(88)80083-3 · DOI
  54. Lin, 1998, Glottographic signal perturbation in biomechanically different types of dysphonia, Laryngoscope, 108, 18, 10.1097/00005537-199801000-00004 · DOI
  55. Rosen, 2000, Acoustic, aerodynamic, and videostroboscopic features of bilateral vocal fold lesions, Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 109, 823, 10.1177/000348940010900907 · DOI
  56. Brockmann-Bauser, 2018, Acoustic perturbation measures improve with increasing vocal intensity in individuals with and without voice disorders, J Voice, 32, 162, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.04.008 · DOI
  57. CasadoMorente, 2001, Study objetive of voice in normal population and dysphonia for nodules and polyps, Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp, 52, 472
  58. Herzel, 1994, Analysis of vocal disorders with methods from nonlinear dynamics, J Speech Hear Res, 37, 1008, 10.1044/jshr.3705.1008 · DOI
  59. Hasanvand, 2017, A cepstral analysis of normal and pathologic voice qualities in Iranian adults: a comparative study, J Voice, 31, 508.e17, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.017 · DOI
  60. Heman-Ackah, 2014, Quantifying the cepstralpeak prominence, a measure of dysphonia, J Voice, 28, 783, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.05.005 · DOI
  61. Teixeira, 2014, Jitter, shimmer and HNR classification within gender, tones and vowels in healthy voices, Procedia Technol, 16, 1228, 10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.138 · DOI
  62. Lowell, 2013, Predictive value and discriminant capacity of cepstral- and spectral-based measures during continuous speech, J Voice, 27, 393, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.02.005 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Narasimhan, S., & Rashmi, R.
Corresponding author
Rashmi, Rajesh
Venue
Journal of Voice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
335-343
ISSN
0892-1997 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.009
OpenAlex
W3041815196
Cited by
38
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Voice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
Keywords
dysphonia, voice disorders, perceptual voice evaluation, cepstral analysis, acoustic voice analysis, glottal closure, breathiness, roughness, hoarseness
MeSH terms
Hoarseness, Humans, Retrospective Studies, Speech Acoustics, Speech Production Measurement, Voice Quality, Reproducibility of Results, Dysphonia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multiparameter Voice Assessment in Dysphonics: Correlation Between Objective and Perceptual Parameters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.009
The paper
Narasimhan, S., & Rashmi, R. (2022). Multiparameter Voice Assessment in Dysphonics: Correlation Between Objective and Perceptual Parameters. Journal of Voice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.009