Advertisement

Performance of Acoustic Measures for the Discrimination Among Healthy, Rough, Breathy, and Strained Voices Using the Feedforward Neural Network

      Summary

      Objective

      To identify and evaluate the best set of acoustic measures to discriminate among healthy, rough, breathy, and strained voices.

      Methods

      This study used the vocal samples of the sustained /ε/ vowel from 251 patients with the vocal complaints, among which 51, 80, 63, and 57 patients exhibited healthy, rough, breathy, and strained voices, respectively. Twenty-two acoustic measures were extracted, and feature selection was applied to reduce the number of combinations of acoustic measures and obtain an optimal subset of measures according to the information gain attribute ranking algorithm. To classify signals as a function of predominant voice quality, a feedforward neural network was applied using a Levenberg-Marquardt supervised learning algorithm.

      Results

      The best results were obtained from 11 combinations, with each combination presenting six acoustic measures. Kappa indices ranged from 0.7527 to 0.7743, the overall hit rates are 81.67%-83.27%, and the hit rates of healthy, rough, breathy, and strained voices are 74.51%-84.31%, 78.75%-90.00%, 85.71%-98.41%, and 68.42%-82.46%, respectively.

      Conclusions

      We obtained the best results from 11 combinations, with each combination exhibiting six acoustic measures for discriminating among healthy, rough, breathy, and strained voices. These sets exhibited good Kappa performance and a good overall hit rate. The hit rate varied between acceptable and good for healthy voices, acceptable and excellent for rough voices, good and excellent for breathy voices, and poor and good for strained voices.

      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

        • Dejonckere PH
        • Bradley P
        • Clemente P
        • et al.
        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-Laryngol. 2001; 258: 77-82https://doi.org/10.1007/s004050000299
      1. Souza BO, Gama ACC, Apoio visual do traçado espectrográfico: impacto na confiabilidade da análise perceptivo-auditiva da voz por avaliadores inexperientes, Distúrbios da Comunição; 2015 (3) 479-486.

        • Patel RR
        • Awan SN
        • Barkmeier-Kraemer J
        • et al.
        Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Expert Panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018; 27: 887-905https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
        • Uloza V
        • Verikas A
        • Bacauskiene M
        • et al.
        Categorizing normal and pathological voices: Automated and perceptual categorization.
        J Voice. 2010; 25: 700-708https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.04.009
        • Boominathan P
        • Samuel J
        • Arunachalam R
        • et al.
        Multi parametric voice assessment: Sri Ramachandra University Protocol.
        Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 66: 246-251https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-011-0460-y
        • Buder EH.
        Acoustic analysis of voice quality: a tabulation of algorithms 1902 -1990.
        in: Kent MJ Ball RD Voice Quality Measurement. 1st ed. Singular Publishing Group, 2000: 119-244
        • Omori K
        • Slavit DH
        • Kacker A
        • et al.
        Influence of size and etiology of glottal gap in glottic incompetence dysphonia.
        Laryngoscope. 1998; 108: 514-518https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199804000-00010
        • Hirano M
        Objective evaluation of the human voice: clinical aspects.
        Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1989; 41: 89-144https://doi.org/10.1159/000265950
        • Roy N
        • Barkmeier-Kraemer J
        • Eadie T
        • et al.
        Evidence-based clinical voice assessment: a systematic review.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013; 22: 212-226https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014)
        • Hunter EJ
        • Titze IR.
        Quantifying vocal fatigue recovery: dynamic vocal recovery trajectories after a vocal loading exercise.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009; 118: 449-460https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940911800608
        • Latoszek BBV
        • Maryn Y
        • Gerrits E
        • et al.
        A meta-analysis: acoustic measurement of roughness and breathiness.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018; 61: 298-323https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0188
        • Isshiki N
        • Okamura H
        • Tanabe M
        • et al.
        Differential diagnosis of hoarseness.
        Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1969; 21: 9-19https://doi.org/10.1159/000263230
        • Hirano M
        • McCormick KR.
        Clinical examination of voice by Minoru Hirano.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 80: 1273https://doi.org/10.1121/1.393788
        • Kempster GB
        • Gerratt BR
        • Abbott KV
        • et al.
        Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017)
        • Yamasaki R
        • Madazio G
        • Leão SH
        • et al.
        Auditory-perceptual evaluation of normal and dysphonic voices using the voice deviation scale.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 67-71https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.01.004
        • Laver J
        • Wirz S
        • Mackenzie J
        • et al.
        A perceptual protocol for the analysis of vocal profiles.
        Edinb Univ Dep. Linguist Work Prog. 1981; 14: 139-155
        • Oates J.
        Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality.
        Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 2009; 61: 49-56https://doi.org/10.1159/000200768
        • Bhuta T
        • Patrick L
        • Garnett JD
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic Measurements.
        J Voice. 2004; 18: 299-304https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.12.004
        • DeJonckere P
        • Schoentgen J
        • Giordano A
        • et al.
        Validity of jitter measures innon-quasi-periodic voices. Part I: perceptual and computer performances in cycle pattern recognition.
        Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2011; 36: 70-77https://doi.org/10.3109/14015439.2011.578078
        • Lu FL
        • Matteson S.
        Speech tasks and interrater reliability in perceptual voice evaluation.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 725-732https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.01.018
        • Baravieira PB
        • Brasolotto AG
        • Montagnoli AN
        • et al.
        Auditory-perceptual evaluation of rough and breathy voices: correspondence between analogical visual and numericalscale.
        Codas. 2016; 28: 163-167https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015098
        • Parsa V
        • Jamieson DG.
        Identification of pathological voices using glottal noise measures.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43: 469-485https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.469
        • Heman-Ackah YD
        • Michael DD
        • Goding GS
        The relationship between cepstral peak prominence and selected parameters of dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2002; 16: 20-27https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(02)00067-X
        • Lopes LW
        • Cavalcante DP
        • da Costa PO.
        Severity of voice disorders: integration of perceptual and acoustic data in dysphonic patients.
        Codas. 2014; 26: 382-388https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20142013033
        • Anand S
        • Kopf LM
        • Shrivastav R
        • et al.
        Objective indices of perceived vocal strain.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 838-845https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.06.005
        • Lopes LW
        • da Silva Sousa ES
        • da Silva ACF
        • et al.
        Cepstral measures in the assessment of severity of voice disorders.
        Codas. 2019; 31: 1-8https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182018175
        • Lopes LW
        • da Silva KE
        • da Silva Evangelista D
        • et al.
        Performance of phonatory deviation diagrams in synthesized voice analysis.
        Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 2017; 69: 246-260https://doi.org/10.1159/000487941
        • Maryn Y
        • Roy N
        • De Bodt M
        • et al.
        Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a meta-analysis.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126: 2619-2634https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3224706
        • Brockmann-Bauser M
        • Drinnan MJ.
        Routine acoustic voice analysis: time to think again?.
        Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011; 19: 165-170https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e32834575fe
        • Brinca LF
        • Batista APF
        • Tavares AI
        • et al.
        Use of cepstral analyses fordifferentiating normal from dysphonic voices: a comparative study of connected speech versus sustained vowel in European Portuguese female speakers.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 282-286https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.10.001
        • Latoszek BBV
        • Maryn Y
        • Gerrits E
        • et al.
        The acoustic breathiness index (ABI): a multivariate acoustic model for breathiness.
        J Voice. 2017; 31 (511.e11-511.e27)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.11.017
        • Behlau M
        • Madazio G
        • Oliveira G.
        Functional dysphonia: strategies to improve patient outcomes.
        Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2015; 6: 243-253https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.s68631
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Cohen SM.
        Exploring the relationship between spectral and cepstral measures of voice and the voice handicap index (VHI).
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 430-439https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.12.008
        • Lowell SY
        • Kelley RT
        • Awan SN
        • et al.
        Spectral- and cepstral-based acousticfeatures of dysphonic, strained voice quality.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012; 121: 539-548https://doi.org/10.1177/000348941212100808
        • Latoszek BBV
        • De Bodt M
        • Gerrits E
        • et al.
        The exploration of an objective model for roughness with several acoustic markers.
        J Voice. 2018; 32: 149-161https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.04.017
        • Goncalves MIR
        • Pontes PAL
        • Vieira VP
        • et al.
        Transfer function of Brazilian Portuguese oral vowels: a comparative acoustic analysis.
        Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 75: 680-684
        • Cohen J.
        A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
        Educ Psychol Meas. 1960; 20: 37-46https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
        • Quinlan JR.
        C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning, Ebrary Online.
        Elsevier Science, 2014
        • Hagan MT
        • Menhaj MB.
        Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm.
        IEEE Trans Neural Netw. 1994; 5: 989-993https://doi.org/10.1109/72.329697
        • Congalton RG.
        A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data.
        Remote Sens Environ. 1991; 37: 35-46https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B
        • Landis JR
        • Koch GG.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
      2. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX, Applied logistic regression, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, Wiley 2013.

        • Lopes LW
        • Vieira VJD
        • do Nascimento Cunha Costa SL
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of recurrence quantification measures in discriminating subjects with and without voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 208-220https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.09.004
        • Prosek RA
        • Montgomery AA
        • Walden BE
        • et al.
        An evaluation of residue features as correlates of voice disorders.
        J Commun Disord. 1987; 20: 105-117https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(87)90002-5
        • Lopes LW
        • do Nascimento Alves J
        • da Silva Evangelista D
        • et al.
        Accuracy of traditional and formant acoustic measurements in the evaluation of vocal quality.
        Codas. 2018; 30: 1-10https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017282