The acoustic voice quality index (AVQI) is a specific acoustic indicator designed to objectively estimate dysphonia severity and measure the values of acoustic parameters based on the diagnostic category. This study compared the performance of two AVQI versions (2.02 and 3.01, v2 and v3) and PraatCPPS using a voice sample of Korean population.
Materials and Methods
Voice samples for sustained vowel and connected speech were elicited from 2257 patients across 14 diagnostic categories. Auditory-perceptual (A-P) assessments of dysphonia severity were compared to acoustic parameters of severity derived from two versions of the AVQI (v2 and v3) as well as the PraatCPPS.
The AVQI-estimated severity (v2 and v3) and PraatCPPS severity for concatenated voice samples strongly correlated with each other and were significantly associated with A-P ratings. The AVQI (v2 and v3) and PraatCPPS showed high reliability in differentiating between pathological voice disorders.
The AVQI (v2 and v3) and PraatCPPS were strongly correlated with the A-P ratings and provided valid estimates of dysphonia severity. However, the associations of the A-P ratings with the AVQIv2 were significantly stronger than those with the AVQIv3 and PraatCPPS, suggesting that the V2 outperformed the V3 and PraatCPPS.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Voice
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders.J Commun Disord. 2010; 43: 161-174
- Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.J Voice. 2010; 24: 540-555
- Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the acoustic voice quality index.J Voice. 2012; 26 (672.e1–7)
- Test-retest variability and internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index.HNO. 2013; 61: 399-403
- 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
- The improvement of internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index.Am J Otolaryngol. 2015; 36: 647-656
- Application of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index for Objective Measurement of Dysphonia Severity.Acta Otorrinolaringologica. 2017; 68: 204-211
- Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Japanese Language.J Voice. 2017; 31 (260.e1–260.e9)
- Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Lithuanian Language.J Voice. 2017; 31 (257e1–251.e11)
- Auditory-perceptual and acoustic methods in measuring dysphonia severity of Korean Speech.J Voice. 2016; 30: 587-594
- Comparison of two multiparameter acoustic indices of dysphonia severity: the Acoustic Voice Quality Index and Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia.J Voice. 2017; 32 (515.e1–515.e13)
- The Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 for the Japanese-speaking Population.J Voice. 2017;
- External Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 with extended representativity.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016; 125: 571-583
- Validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID) as a screening tool for voice disorders: development of clinical cutoff scores.J Voice. 2016; 30: 130-144
- An examination of variations in the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia across a single breath group in connected speech.J Voice. 2015; 29: 26-34
- Toward validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index Of Dysphonia (CSID) as an objective treatment outcomes measure.J Voice. 2013; 27: 401-410
- Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Korean Language.J Voice. 2018; (In Press)
- A comparison of Dysphonia Severity Index and Acoustic Voice Quality Index measures in differentiating normal and dysphonic voices.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018; 275: 949-958
- The influence of gender and age on the Acoustic Voice Quality Index and Dysphonia Severity Index: a normative study.J Voice. 2017;
- Acoustic and auditory-perceptual evaluation as predictor of voice recovery after laryngeal microsurgery in patients with vocal polyp.Korean J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 61: 361-369
- Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 and the Acoustic Breathiness Index in the Spanish language.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018; 127: 317-326
- Objective dysphonia measures in the program praat: smoothed Cepstral Peak Prominence and Acoustic Voice Quality Index.J Voice. 2015; 29: 35-43
- 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
- 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: 1525-1537
- The Acoustic Voice Quality Index. toward expanded measurement of dysphonia severity in German subjects.HNO. 2012; 60: 715-720
- GRBAS and Cape-V Scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times.J Voice. 2012; 26 (812.e17–22)
- The relationship between cepstral peak prominence and selected parameters of dysphonia.J Voice. 2002; 16: 20-27
- Cepstral analysis of normal and pathological voice in Spanish adults. Smoothed cepstral peak prominence in sustained vowels versus connected speech.Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2018; 69: 134-140
- Clinical application of cepstral peak prominence for treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders: cfomparing ADSV, Speechtool, and PNU_CPP.J Speech-Lang, Hear, Disord. 2016; 25: 93-102
- Tracking voice change after thyroidectomy: application of spectral/cepstral analyses.Clin Linguist Phon. 2011; 25: 302-320
- Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders.J Voice. 2007; 21: 576-590
- 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. 1999; 13: 508-517
- Fat augmentation for glottic insufficiency.Laryngoscope. 2000; 110: 1026-1033
- Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333
- Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: dysphonic voices and continuous speech.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1996; 39: 311-321
- Quantifying the cepstral peak prominence, a measure of dysphonia.J Voice. 2014; 28: 783-788
- A study of cepstral peak prominence characteristics in ADSV, SpeechTool and Praat.J Speech-Lang, Hear, Disord. 2017; 26: 99-111
- Predictive value and discriminant capacity of cepstral- and spectral-based measures during continuous speech.J Voice. 2013; 27: 393-400
- Predicting voice disorder status from smoothed measures of cepstral peak prominence using praat and analysis of dysphonia in speech and voice (ADSV).J Voice. 2017; 31: 557-566
Published online: December 06, 2018
Accepted: November 21, 2018
© 2018 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.