Advertisement

A Practical Guide to Calculating Cepstral Peak Prominence in Praat

Published:October 06, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.09.002

      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 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

        • 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-Language Pathol. 2018; 27: 887-905https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Jetté ME
        • et al.
        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
        • Parsa V
        • Jamieson DG
        Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2001; 44: 327-339https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/027)
        • Watts CR
        • Awan SN
        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
      1. 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

        • F Esen Aydinli
        • Özcebe E
        • Ö İncebay
        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
        • Murton O
        • Hillman R
        • Mehta D
        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
        • Sauder C
        • Bretl M
        • Eadie T
        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
        • Hillenbrand J
        • Cleveland RA
        • Erickson RL
        Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 769-778https://doi.org/10.1044/JSHR.3704.769
        • Hillenbrand J
        • Houde RA
        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
        • Heman-Ackah YD
        • Heuer RJ
        • Michael DD
        • et al.
        Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200406
        • 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
        • Maryn Y
        • Weenink D
        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
        • Maryn Y
        • Roy N
        • De Bodt M
        • et al.
        Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a meta-analysis.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126: 2619https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3224706
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Dromey C
        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
        • Awan SN
        • Giovinco A
        • Owens J
        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
        • Brockmann-Bauser M
        • Van Stan JH
        • Carvalho Sampaio M
        • et al.
        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
        • Phadke KV
        • Laukkanen AM
        • Ilomäki I
        • et al.
        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
        • Munier C
        • Brockmann-Bauser M
        • Laukkanen AM
        • et al.
        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
        • Madill C
        • Nguyen DD
        • Yick-Ning Cham K
        • et al.
        The impact of nasalance on cepstral peak prominence and harmonics-to-noise ratio.
        Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: E299-E304https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.27685
        • Sampaio M
        • Masson MLV
        • Soares MF de P
        • et al.
        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
        • Tracy LF
        • Segina RK
        • Cadiz MD
        • et al.
        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
        • Skowronski MD
        • Shrivastav R
        • Hunter EJ
        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
        • van der Woerd B
        • Wu M
        • Parsa V
        • et al.
        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
        • Grillo EU
        • Brosious JN
        • Sorrell SL
        • et al.
        Influence of smartphones and software on acoustic voice measures.
        Int J Telerehabilitation. 2016; 8: 9-14https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2016.6202
        • P S S
        • Pebbili GK
        Cepstral analysis of voice in young adults.
        J Voice. 2022; 36: 43-49https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.03.010
        • Infusino SA
        • Diercks GR
        • Rogers DJ
        • et al.
        Establishment of a normative cepstral pediatric acoustic database.
        JAMA Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2015; 141: 358-363https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2014.3545
        • Diercks GR
        • Ojha S
        • Infusino S
        • et al.
        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
        • Watts CR
        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
        • Demirci AN
        • Köse A
        • Aydinli FE
        • et al.
        Investigating the cepstral acoustic characteristics of voice in healthy children.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 148110815https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2021.110815
        • Kitayama I
        • Hosokawa K
        • Iwahashi T
        • et al.
        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
        • Lowell SY
        • Colton RH
        • Kelley RT
        • et al.
        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
        • MacPherson MK
        • Abur D
        • Stepp CE
        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
        • Madill C
        • Nguyen DD
        • Eastwood C
        • et al.
        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
        • Pierce JL
        • Tanner K
        • Merrill RM
        • et al.
        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
        • Lee JM
        • Roy N
        • Peterson E
        • et al.
        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
        • Watts CR
        • Awan SN
        • Maryn Y
        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
      2. Boersma P, Weenick D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. 2019. Available at: http://www.praat.org/. Accessed February 1, 2019.

        • Kim GH
        • Bae IH
        • Park HJ
        • et al.
        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
      3. 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

        • Hartnick CJ
        • Rehbar R
        • Prasad V
        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
        • Maryn Y
        • Corthals P
        • Van Cauwenberge P
        • et al.
        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