Advertisement

Usefulness of Direct Magnitude Estimation (DME) in Auditory Perceptual Assessments Measuring Dysphonia Severity

  • YeonWoo Lee
    Affiliations
    Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Kosin University, Busan, South Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • HeeJune Park
    Affiliations
    Department of Speech and Hearing Therapy, Catholic University of Pusan, Busan, South Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • DongWon Lim
    Affiliations
    Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, South Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • GeunHyo Kim
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to GeunHyo Kim, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, 179, Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea.
    Affiliations
    Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, South Korea
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 26, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.09.001

      Summary

      Objectives

      The purposes of this study were (1) to analyze the reliability of direct magnitude estimation (DME) scales in auditory perceptual assessments measuring dysphonia severity and (2) to analyze the usefulness of DME scales in comparison to that of equal-appearing interval (EAI) scales.

      Study Design

      Three speech language pathologists perceptually evaluated dysphonia severity from connected speech samples produced by 105 participants with dysphonia. Two auditory perceptual assessments using two scales (DME and EAI) were performed for 2 weeks. The reliabilities of auditory perceptual assessments were analyzed, and correlation analysis was performed to analyze the relationship between the two scales.

      Results

      DME and EAI were found to have high reliability for auditory perceptual assessments measuring voice severity. There was a significant curvilinear relationship between EAI and DME. This indicates that a prosthetic continuum represents the dysphonia severity and suggests that DME scales should be used to measure dysphonia severity to avoid the linear partitioning related to EAI scales.

      Conclusions

      Our study supports the use of DME scales when judging the overall voice severity of dysphonic patients.

      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

        • Metz DE
        • Schiavetti N
        • Sacco PR.
        Acoustic and psychophysical dimensions of the perceived speech naturalness of nonstutterers and posttreatment stutterers.
        J Speech Hear Disord. 1990; 55: 516-525
        • Southwood M
        • Weismer G.
        Listener judgments of the bizarreness, acceptability, naturalness, and normalcy of the dysarthria associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
        J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 1993; 1: 151-161
        • 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: 67-71
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Zhang D
        • et al.
        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
        • 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;
        • Gerratt BR
        • Kreiman J
        • Antonanzas-Barroso N
        • et al.
        Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36: 14-20
        • Choi SH
        • Yu M
        • Choi C-H.
        Comparisons of 4-point GRBAS, 7-point-GRBAS, and CAPE-V for auditory perceptual evaluation of dysphonia.
        Audiol Speech Res. 2021; 17: 206-219
        • Ha S.
        A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation in the perceptual judgment of hypernasality.
        Commun Sci Disord. 2009; 14:563: -573
        • Prather EM.
        Scaling defectiveness of articulation by direct magnitude-estimation.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1960; 3: 380-392
        • Sewall A
        • Weglarski A
        • Metz DE
        • et al.
        A methodological control study of scaled vocal breathiness measurements.
        Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 1999; 26: 168-172
        • Stevens SS
        • Marks LE.
        Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects.
        Routledge, New York2017
        • Schiavetti N
        • Metz DE
        • Sitler RW.
        Construct validity of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of speech intelligibility: evidence from a study of the hearing impaired.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1981; 24: 441-445
        • Schiavetti N
        • Sacco PR
        • Metz DE
        • et al.
        Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of stuttering severity.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1983; 26: 568-573
        • Stevens S.
        Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects.
        2000 ed. John Willey and Sons, New York1975
        • Schiavetti N.
        Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibilty.
        in: Kent RD Intelligibility in speech disorders: Theory, measurement and management. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia1992: 11-34
        • Schiavetti N.
        Scaling procedures for quantification of speech, language and hearing variables.
        in: Daniloff RG Articulation assessment and treatment issues. College-Hill Press, San Diego1984: 237-253
        • Toner MA
        • Emanuel FW.
        Direct magnitude estimation and equal appearing interval scaling of vowel roughness.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1989; 32: 78-82
        • Eadie TL
        • Doyle PC.
        Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112: 3014-3021
        • Eadie TL
        • Doyle PC.
        Classification of dysphonic voice: acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 1-14
        • Chapman KL
        • Hardin-Jones MA
        • Goldstein JA
        • et al.
        Timing of palatal surgery and speech outcome.
        Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008; 45: 297-308
        • Qi Y
        • Hillman RE
        • Milstein C.
        The estimation of signal-to-noise ratio in continuous speech for disordered voices.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 105: 2532-2535
        • Choi SH
        • Choi C-H.
        The effect of gender and speech task on cepstral-and spectral-measures of Korean normal speakers.
        Audiol Speech Res. 2016; 12: 157-163
        • Lee Y
        • Kim G
        • Sohn K
        • et al.
        The usefulness of auditory perceptual assessment and acoustic analysis as a screening test for voice problems.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2021; 73: 34-41
      1. Lee Y, Park H, Bae I, et al. The usefulness of multi voice evaluation: development of a model for predicting a degree of dysphonia. J Voice. 2020;S0892-1997(20)30411-2.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.10.020.

        • Hillenbrand J
        • Houde RA.
        Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: dysphonic voices and continuous speech.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1996; 39: 311-321
        • Klingholtz F.
        Acoustic recognition of voice disorders: A comparative study of running speech versus sustained vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 87: 2218-2224
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Kempster GB
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40
        • Chan KM
        • Yiu EM
        The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45: 111-126
        • Whitehill TL
        • Lee AS
        • Chun JC
        Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45: 80-88
        • Weismer G
        • Laures JS
        Direct magnitude estimates of speech intelligibility in dysarthria: effects of a chosen standard.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45: 421-433
        • Stevens SS
        Perceptual magnitude and its measurement.
        in: Caterette EC Friedman MP Handbook of Perception. 2. Academic Press, New York1974: 22-40
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Precoda K
        • et al.
        Individual differences in voice quality perception.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992; 35: 512-520
        • Eadie TL
        • Doyle PC.
        Scaling of voice pleasantness and acceptability in tracheoesophageal speakers.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 373-383