Summary
The acoustic measure of cepstral peak prominence (CPP) is recommended for the analysis
of dysphonia. Yet, clinical use of this measure is not universal, as clinicians and
researchers are still learning the strengths and limitations of this measure. Furthermore,
affordable access to specialized acoustic software is a significant barrier to universal
CPP use. This article will provide a guide on how to calculate CPP in Praat, a free
software program, using a new CPP plugin. Important external factors that could influence
CPP measures are discussed, and suggestions for clinical use are provided. As CPP
becomes more widely used by clinicians and researchers, it is important to consider
external factors that may inadvertently influence CPP values. Controlling for these
external factors will aid in reducing variability across CPP values, which will make
CPP a valuable tool for both clinical and research purposes.
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 accessOne-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 VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- 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-Language Pathol. 2018; 27: 887-905https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
- Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V.Clin Linguist Phonetics. 2010; 24: 742-758https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2010.492446
- Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice.J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2001; 44: 327-339https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/027)
- An examination of variations in the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia across a single breath group in connected speech.J Voice. 2015; 29: 26-34https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2014.04.012
Lowell SY. The acoustic assessment of voice in continuous speech. Perspect Voice Voice Disord. 2012;22:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1044/VVD22.2.57
- Use of cepstral analysis for differentiating dysphonic from normal voices in children.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 116: 107-113https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2018.10.029
- Cepstral peak prominence values for clinical voice evaluation.Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2020; 29: 1596-1607https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00001
- 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: 557-566https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2017.01.006
- Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality.J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 769-778https://doi.org/10.1044/JSHR.3704.769
- Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: dysphonic voices and continuous speech.J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 1996; 39: 311-321https://doi.org/10.1044/JSHR.3902.311
- Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200406
- 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
- Objective dysphonia measures in the program Praat: smoothed cepstral peak prominence and acoustic voice quality index.J Voice. 2015; 29: 35-43https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2014.06.015
- Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a meta-analysis.J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126: 2619https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3224706
- Estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech: application of a multi-parameter spectralcepstral model estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech.Clin Linguist Phonetics. 2009; 23: 825-841https://doi.org/10.3109/02699200903242988
- Effects of vocal intensity and vowel type on cepstral analysis of voice.J Voice. 2012; 26 (e15-e20): 670https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2011.12.001
- Effects of vocal intensity and fundamental frequency on cepstral peak prominence in patients with voice disorders and vocally healthy controls.J Voice. 2021; 35: 411-417https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2019.11.015
- Cepstral and perceptual investigations in female teachers with functionally healthy voice.J Voice. 2020; 34 (e33-e43): 485https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2018.09.010
- Relationship between laryngeal signs and symptoms, acoustic measures, and quality of life in finnish primary and kindergarten school teachers.J Voice. 2020; 34: 259-271https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2018.12.006
- The impact of nasalance on cepstral peak prominence and harmonics-to-noise ratio.Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: E299-E304https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.27685
- Effects of fundamental frequency, vocal intensity, sample duration, and vowel context in cepstral and spectral measures of dysphonic voices.J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 1326-1339https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00049
- The impact of communication modality on voice production.J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 2913-2920https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00161
- Cepstral peak sensitivity: a theoretic analysis and comparison of several implementations.J Voice. 2015; 29: 670-681https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2014.11.005
- Evaluation of acoustic analyses of voice in nonoptimized conditions.J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 3991-3999https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00212
- Influence of smartphones and software on acoustic voice measures.Int J Telerehabilitation. 2016; 8: 9-14https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2016.6202
- Cepstral analysis of voice in young adults.J Voice. 2022; 36: 43-49https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.03.010
- Establishment of a normative cepstral pediatric acoustic database.JAMA Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2015; 141: 358-363https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2014.3545
- Consistency of voice frequency and perturbation measures in children using cepstral analyses: a movement toward increased recording stability.JAMA Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2013; 139: 811-816https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.3926
- The effect of CAPE-V sentences on cepstral/spectral acoustic measures in dysphonic speakers.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015; 67: 15-20https://doi.org/10.1159/000371656
- Investigating the cepstral acoustic characteristics of voice in healthy children.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 148110815https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2021.110815
- Intertext variability of smoothed cepstral peak prominence, methods to control it, and its diagnostic properties.J Voice. 2020; 34: 305-319https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2018.09.021
- Spectral- and cepstral-based measures during continuous speech: capacity to distinguish dysphonia and consistency within a speaker.J Voice. 2011; 25: e223-e232https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2010.06.007
- Acoustic measures of voice and physiologic measures of autonomic arousal during speech as a function of cognitive load.J Voice. 2017; 31 (e1–e9): 504https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2016.10.021
- Comparison of cepstral peak prominence measures using the ADSV, SpeechTool, and VoiceSauce acoustic analysis programs in vocally healthy female speakers.Acoust Aust. 2018; 46: 215-226https://doi.org/10.1007/S40857-018-0139-6
- A field-based approach to establish normative acoustic data for healthy female voices.J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2021; 64: 691-706https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00490
- Comparison of two multiparameter acoustic indices of dysphonia severity: The acoustic voice quality index and cepstral spectral index of dysphonia.J Voice. 2018; 32 (e1–e13): 515https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2017.06.012
- A comparison of cepstral peak prominence measures from two acoustic analysis programs.J Voice. 2017; 31 (e1–e10): 387https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.012
Boersma P, Weenick D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. 2019. Available at: http://www.praat.org/. Accessed February 1, 2019.
- Comparison of cepstral analysis based on voiced-segment extraction and voice tasks for discriminating dysphonic and normophonic Korean speakers.J Voice. 2021; 35 (e11–e22): 328https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2019.09.009
Lowell SY, Hylkema JA. The effect of speaking context on spectral- and cepstral-based acoustic features of normal voice. Clin Linguist Phon. 2015;30:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1087049
- Development and maturation of the pediatric human vocal fold lamina propria.Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 4-15https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000150685.54893.e9
- Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: Combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.J Voice. 2010; 24: 540-555https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2008.12.014
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 06, 2022
Accepted:
September 2,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
Portions of this paper were presented at the 2022 Voice Foundation Annual Symposium.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
