Advertisement

Developing Clinically Relevant Scales of Breathy and Rough Voice Quality

Published:January 13, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.12.021

      Summary

      The most common measurement tools used in the perceptual evaluation of voice quality yield ordinal data and thus do not support the establishment of mathematical relationships among different measurement values. This makes their interpretation challenging. Among the many desirable features of any psychophysical measurement tool is the ability to quantify the difference between two or more measurements and the ability to interpret the measurements in a manner that is related to the experience of the observer. The former allows one to compare among measurements using simple mathematics, while the latter allows that comparison to be interpreted in constructive ways. In this paper we describe the development of standard measurement scales for two dimensions of voice quality, following an approach that has been applied successfully to the perception of loudness. The scales follow step-by-step procedures used to develop the sone scale of loudness, which ties physical units to the perceptual estimates of loudness magnitude. Goals of the current work include development of analogous scales for the perception of breathy and rough voice qualities. First, the relationship between perceived voice quality and physical units were established using single-variable matching tasks. Second, the relationship between a change in physical units from the single-variable matching tasks and perceived voice quality magnitude were established using magnitude estimation tasks. Third, single reference points were identified on breathy and rough continuums. Finally, all points on the newly established voice quality continuums were rescaled relative to these arbitrary reference points. The proposed breathiness and roughness scales result in ratio-level data with standard measurement units that support quantitative comparisons of perceptual judgments. Such judgments can be used, for example, to compare magnitude of change pre- and post-treatment.

      Key Words

      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
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Hirano M.
        Clinical Examination of Voice.
        Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York1981
        • Kempster G.B.
        • Gerratt B.R.
        • Abbott K.V.
        • et al.
        Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.
        Am J Speech-Lang Pat. 2009; 18: 124-132
        • Nagle K.F.
        Emerging scientist: challenges to CAPE-V as a standard.
        Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2016; 1: 47-53
        • Oates J.
        Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality: pros, cons and future directions.
        Folia Phoniatr Et Logop. 2009; 61: 49-56
        • Patel S.
        • Shrivastav R.
        • Eddins D.A.
        Perceptual distances of breathy voice quality: a comparison of psychophysical methods.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 168-177
        • Nemr K.
        • Simões-Zenari M.
        • Cordeiro G.F.
        • et al.
        GRBAS and Cape-V scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 812.e17-812.e22
        • Zraick R.I.
        • Kempster G.B.
        • Connor N.P.
        • et al.
        Establishing validity of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V).
        Am J Speech Lang Pat. 2011; 20: 14-22
        • Johnson K.
        • Brehm S.B.
        • Weinrich B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of the pediatric voice handicap index with perceptual voice analysis in pediatric patients with vocal fold lesions.
        Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011; 137: 1258-1262
        • Karnell M.P.
        • Melton S.D.
        • Childes J.M.
        • et al.
        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
        • Kreiman J.
        • Gerratt B.R.
        • Kempster G.B.
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40
        • Kelchner L.N.
        • Brehm S.B.
        • Weinrich B.
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of severe pediatric voice disorders: rater reliability using the consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 441-449
        • Solomon N.P.
        • Helou L.B.
        • Stojadinovic A.
        Clinical versus laboratory ratings of voice using the CAPE-V.
        J Voice. 2011; 25: e7-e14
        • Chan K.M.
        • Yiu E.M.
        The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45: 111-126
        • Eadie T.L.
        • Baylor C.R.
        The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners' judgments of dysphonic voice.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 527-544
        • Eadie T.L.
        • Kapsner-Smith M.
        The effect of listener experience and anchors on judgments of dysphonia.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011; 54: 430-447
        • Shrivastav R.
        • Sapienza C.M.
        • Nandur V.
        Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48: 323-335
        • Stevens S.S.
        A scale for the measurement of a psychological magnitude: loudness.
        Psychol Rev. 1936; 43: 405-416
        • Eddins D.A.
        • Shrivastav R.
        Psychometric functions for rough voice quality.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 127 (2021-2021)
        • Gelfand S.A.
        Hearing: An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics.
        Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York1998: 262-263
        • Stevens S.S.
        On the theory of scales of measurement.
        Science. 1946; 103: 677-680
        • Stevens S.S.
        Ratio scales, partition scales, and confusion scales.
        in: Gulliksen H. Messick S. Psychological Scaling: Theory and Applications. Wiley, New York1960
        • Stevens S.S.
        The psychophysics of sensory function.
        in: Rosenblith W.A. Sensory Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass1961
        • ANSI
        ANSI Sl.1-2010, American National Standard Acoustical Terminology.
        American National Standard Institute, New York2010
        • Patel S.
        • Shrivastav R.
        • Eddins D.A.
        Developing a single comparison stimulus for matching breathy voice quality.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012; 55: 639-647
        • Patel S.
        • Shrivastav R.
        • Eddins D.A.
        Identifying a comparison for matching rough voice quality.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012; 55: 1407-1422
        • Fastl H.
        Roughness and temporal masking patterns of sinusoidally amplitude modulated broadband noise.
        in: Evans E.F. Wilson J.P. Psychophysics and Physiology of Hearing. Academic, London1977: 403-414
        • Fastl H.
        • Zwicker E.
        Psychoacoustics: Facts and models.
        3rd ed. Springer, New York2007
        • Eddins D.A.
        • Shrivastav R.
        Psychometric properties associated with perceived vocal roughness using a matching task.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 134: EL294-EL300
        • Kemp S.
        Roughness of frequency-modulated tones.
        Acta Acust United Ac. 1982; 50: 126-133
        • Shrivastav R.
        • Camacho A.
        • Patel S.
        • Eddins D.A.
        A model for the prediction of breathiness in vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 129: 1605-1615